More questions for MEG

[Amanda]

I am speaking strictly in my personal capacity. This is just Amanda. 
I am not a faceless MEG entity at the moment. I have taken off my 
Independent-Thought Neutralizer (TM) and possess the ability to 
express opinions and thoughts of my own. The following post reflects 
*only* these. I am posting here as a FAQ member only. References to 
MEG are incidental and do not reflect any policy or stance thereunto 
appertaining. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in shipping.

I apologize to any and all, but this post is about a basic assumption 
Tom is making, rather than any specific question, and I am answering 
as a longtime FAQ member and (clearly) a political neophyte. 

Tom:
> Given that over half of FAQ's members are members of MEG, what 
steps 
> is MEG taking to ensure that policy decisions made by FAQ fairly 
> reflect the opinions of non-MEG members of FAQ?
> 
> In other words, since MEG holds a majority on FAQ, non-MEG members 
> are literally in no position to decide anything that contradicts 
> MEG, since an obvious voting block exists. 

I wouldn't think any "weighting" or other measures are necessary, 
personally. By way of example--I am a Republican who can, does, and 
has voted for Democratic, Independent, or other non-Republican 
candidates. Like most people I know, I look at issues and stances, 
instead of the little (R) or (D) or whatever. I find the option "vote 
all Republican" or whatever it says, laughable. Republicans do not 
think and move as one. Most groups don't. Groups are a bunch of 
*individuals.* Individuals think, decide, weigh options, as 
individuals.

What I have seen in action on FAQ in the past, has been that FAQ 
members are FAQ members and discuss issues from that perspective. 
This political MEG/nonMEG distinction that you are considering a 
foregone conclusion, is not something that I, at least, had ever 
perceived as existing here, prior to all this governance stuff. It 
may have now been so discussed by this point that it has come into 
existence--but I think it is far more the product of the discussion, 
than vice versa. Wag the Dog.

The assumption that this list had, has, or will have some sort 
of "party system" happening, that there are "voting blocks" along 
MEG/nonMEG lines, is not one that I personally consider valid. I 
didn't hand over my identity or ability to think for myself when I 
became a MEG. It also sounds like your basic assumption lumps the 
nonMEG FAQ members into a Unit that groupthinks rather than 
considering issues as individuals. This does justice to none of us.

There are clearly some things that need to be worked out between the 
two groups, but this political-party, majority/minority, subgroup 
identity approach is not something I had ever perceived, nor do I 
believe fostering it helps anything. I honestly can not tell you who 
the MEGs on this list are. I could tell you a few, but naming who is 
and who isn't? Off the top of my head? No way. Not only do I not have 
time to keep track of that sort of detail, it's just not the way I 
think.

For me to be exercising the kind of preselective group-based decision-
making you are describing, I would have to print out a list of MEG 
FAQ members and one of nonMEG FAQ members and stick it on my 
computer, as a quick-reference card to remind me who was in 
which "camp," which I presumably would consult before agreeing or 
disagreeing with an expressed stance. I decline to do this. I have no 
time for this. Politics isn't what this list--or any of the HP4GU 
lists--were ever about.

Again, this was just Amanda. Not MEG!Amanda or Evil!Amanda or 
Dominatrix!Amanda or any other [adjective]Amanda. Just Amanda 
personally.

~Amanda