More questions for MEG

[Tom Wall]

Hey all – 

I – like Cindy – also have a list of questions for MEG, and they're 
directly related to the two MEG-related e-mails that were sent on 
Wednesday morning. And for the most part, our question lists don't 
even overlap? How great is that? [Unlike the others in this e-mail, 
that question was rhetorical, by the way.] ;-)


Debbie:
The FAQ group is somewhat different from the public groups in that 
its function is to review posts to the main list and write essays 
(with links) about them.

- According to MEG, how long is a member of FAQ allowed to remain 
idle in group discussions and still maintain membership on the FAQ 
list?

- In which cases are exceptions made?

- By whom – MEG or FAQ - are exceptions decided?

- Can exceptions be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?

- According to MEG, how long is a member of FAQ allowed to not 
participate in the production of FP's and still maintain membership 
on the FAQ list?

- In which cases are exceptions made?

- By whom – MEG or FAQ - are exceptions decided?

- Can exceptions be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?


Debbie:
FAQ is run as a semi-autonomous list, meaning that members of FAQ are
responsible for much of the governance and certain policy decisions
of the list.

Tom:
- For which FAQ list governance issues are FAQ responsible?

- For which FAQ list governance issues are MEG responsible?

- (Re: above) Please list these.

- In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ decisions?

- Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?

- For which FAQ list policy decisions are FAQ responsible?

- For which FAQ list policy decisions are MEG responsible?

- (Re: above) Please list these.

- In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ policies?

- How are overrides decided?

- Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?


Debbie:
This means that FAQ must be in open communication with MEG, and that 
the FAQ list must adhere to those policies that MEG determines apply 
to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of lists.

Tom:
- What policies has MEG determined apply to all of the HPfGU lists?

- Please provide a list of these policies.

- Please provide the policies themselves.

- If the policies cannot be provided, then why not?


Debbie:
In order to ensure that open, two-way communication is mantained
between FAQ and MEG, we would like to have a liaison who is a member 
of both groups, someone who will be able to make sure questions and 
comments that affect both groups are properly addressed.

Tom:
Point of clarification: on the internet, "open, two-way 
communication," i.e `dialogue' between groups of people, consists of 
mailing lists, message boards, or chat rooms.

Contrariwise, "liaisons" are used when one does *not* wish to make 
use of "open, two-way communication," and when one does not wish to 
make use of `dialogue.' 

I.e. - what we have now neither constitutes "open, two-way 
communication," nor does it constitute 'dialogue.'


Debbie:
We intend for this person to be agreed upon by members of both 
groups, and so will take nominations for a liaison.

Tom:
- According to what extent is MEG's "intent" subject to change?

- According to what process is this agreement going to take place?

- How is this process to be determined?

- Does MEG possess the authority to override FAQ's decisions 
regarding the liaison?

- Can FAQ contest any override? If so, how? If not, why not?

- How are nominations to be proposed, and to whom?

- How – and where - is a complete list of nominees going to be made 
available for all members of both groups to consider?

- By whom – and how – will the final decision be made?

- Is the decision final?

- If decided by MEG, can the decision be contested? If so, how? If 
not, why not?

- How long will the liaison serve?

- In the eventual event that a liaison is to be replaced, what will 
the procedure be at that time?

- When will the final decision regarding the liaison be made?

- Can this timeline be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?


Debbie:
Official comments by MEG will come only from the liaison, and he or 
she will be responsible for relaying questions or requests from FAQ 
to MEG, as well as relaying MEG's response.

Tom:
If I understand this correctly, then MEG statements will now come 
*only* through the liaison. For the time-being, this liaison is 
Abigail. 

So MEG statements, for the time-being, will come only from Abigail.

In other words, overlap members of MEG who retain membership on FAQ –
 i.e those who are members of both groups, with the sole exception 
being the liaison (who is temporarily Abigail) – no longer retain 
the right to:

a) refer to MEG itself on the FAQ list.
b) refer to MEG discussions on the FAQ list.
c) refer to MEG policy on the FAQ list.

- If this summary is incorrect, please explain how.


In addition to this summation of policy, I have the following 
questions regarding it:

- Who authorized Amanda's post to FAQ regarding MEG-policy?

- Is Amanda's post to FAQ (following Debbie's, and prefixed "ADMIN") 
an accurate expression of MEG policy?

- Is Amanda's post in violation of MEG policy as it has been 
presented thus far by MEG?

- If it is in violation, then can FAQ-members expect a statement of 
contrition from MEG for this violation? If not, why not?

- If Amanda's post is *not* considered to be in direct violation of 
MEG policy as presented thus far, please explain how it is not in 
violation.

- If Amanda's post *was* a statement of MEG policy, and MEG, in 
fact, endorses it, then why did MEG see fit to violate its own 
policy two hours after the policy was first made evident to the 
members of FAQ?

- Please outline the steps that are being taken to avoid a repeat of 
the violations of MEG's policy that took place on Wednesday morning.

- What routes of appeal exist for MEG violations of MEG policy? 

- If not route of appeals exists, please explain why.


Debbie:
As such, this is not a forum for discussion of MEG issues, and 
issues of that type raised here will not be discussed by MEG.

Tom:
If I am accurate in understanding MEG's policy statement, then 
actually:
 
- Questions of MEG policy raised on FAQ by non-MEG members, in fact  
*will* be discussed by MEG, correct? They will be discussed by MEG 
via the liaison? If I am inaccurate, please explain how.


I am also confused about the *role* of the liaison between the two 
groups, and have several attendant questions that do not overlap 
Cindy's list.

- What questions can be posted to the FAQ list?

- What – if any - questions are to be sent directly to the liaison?

- What questions are to be sent to HFfGU–owner?

- What, if any, are the distinctions and guidelines that FAQ members 
are to observe when deciding to whom questions should be sent?


Given these questions regarding the MEG policy that Debbie posted to 
FAQ on Wednesday morning regarding FAQ, please revise said policy 
and have the liaison repost it to the FAQ list. If MEG declines to 
do this, please explain why.


- - - 

Now, the following questions are in regards to Amanda's post to the 
FAQ list on Wednesday morning.


Amanda:
The then-admin team leaped into action; and with great difficulty,
managed to get the files restored; and set up security measures to
avoid this type of occurrence in future. <snip>

Tom:
- Define `security measures.'

- List the `security measures.' If this cannot be done, then why?


Amanda:
So, because of these security concerns, night before last, three MEGs
[Amanda, Dicey, and Kelley] made an executive decision and made the
following changes:

Tom:
- Define `executive decision' in the context of the following 
questions:

- In which cases are `executive decisions' made?

- By whom may `executive decisions' be made?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' decided upon collectively 
by the members of MEG?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' supported by MEG?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG 
binding over the members of MEG?

- To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG 
binding over the members of FAQ?

- Can `executive decisions' be contested or appealed? If so, how? If 
not, why not?


I am also confused concerning Kelley's role in the `executive 
decision' that was made by Amanda, Debbie (who is not Dicey, or 
Sheryll), and Kelley. 

Kelley is not a member of FAQ, and her candidacy on FAQ has been a 
subject of discussion as of late. Therefore, I am not clear 
regarding the extent to which non-FAQ members of MEG may 
unilaterally (as in the case of the decision being discussed) exert 
control and/or influence over FAQ.

- To what degree is a non-member of FAQ, who is a member of MEG,  
entitled to make decisions regarding FAQ?

- To what degree are decisions made by a non-FAQ member that is a 
member of MEG binding on the members of FAQ?

- May decisions made by a non-FAQ member of MEG be contested? If so, 
how? If not, why not?


Amanda:
We stress: this was an interim security measure and has not changed
anyone's moderator status. No further changes will be made without
FAQ's input.

- Define `interim,' as in, 'how long?'

- Define `input,' as in, 'how much?'

- Discuss briefly in the context of the following statement: "FAQ 
has made decision x." To what degree is MEG allowed to overturn 
FAQ's decision x? To what degree is FAQ allowed to appeal MEG's 
decision. If FAQ is not allowed to appeal, then why not?


Amanda:
We further stress: as an interim measure, it can and should be
revisited.

Tom:
- Does `we' refer to Amanda, Debbie, and Kelley? If the answer to 
this is no, then:

- Does `we' refer to the whole of MEG? If the answer to this is no, 
then:

- To whom does `we' refer?

- Am I correct in interpreting Amanda's above statement to 
mean `will be revisited?' [By this I mean that if it is not 
revisited, it will not be `interim' but `permanent.' Is this a 
correct interpretation of Amanda's statement? If not, then how is it 
incorrect, and what is the statement that should have been made?


Amanda:
FAQ is an HP4GU list and MEG will be a part of the decision as to 
who has moderator authority and/or powers on FAQ, but the FAQ 
members and FAQ input are a vital factor as well.

Tom:
- Specifically define MEG's role as being `part of the decision.'

- Specifically define FAQ's role in the decision.

- To what degree does MEG retain the right to overturn FAQ decisions 
regarding this particular sphere of FAQ operations?

- Can MEG overturns of FAQ decisions be contested? If so, how? If 
not, why not?


Amanda:
When a non-interim MEG liaison has been identified, and an optimal 
number of moderators determined, that liaison will work with FAQ to 
organize a moderator selection process.

Tom:
- Define `optimal number of moderators.'

- Elaborate in the following context: `Optimal number of moderators' 
as determined by whom?


Please revise and repost MEG's policy as articulated by Amanda in 
light of these questions. If MEG declines to do this, then please 
explain why.


- - -

I have asked these specific questions because I do not fully 
understand MEG's stated policy, and desire enlightenment in this 
regard for myself and my non-MEG FAQ peers.

Please do not condense any of my questions. Please do not skip any 
of my questions. Please answer each question specifically.


Questions that MEG is currently unable or unwilling to answer may be 
saved until a later time.

Thanks in advance,
Tom