"Work, Don't Talk! (WAS Questions for MEG )

[Cindy C.]

Howdy!

Heidi asked a darn good question the other day, so I thought I'd go
ahead and answer it based on some information I have that Heidi doesn't.

Morgan wrote:

> > So here we are. Again. FAQ made no decisions, and now MEG dictates 
> > what FAQ must do. Which is, basically, "work, don't talk". 

Heidi:

 
> Er. Where does it say that? 


I think Morgan's take on it was just about right.  Below you'll find a
hostile message I received from MEG about my participation on the FAQ
team.  I think you'll find the theme to be "Work, Don't Talk."    

I hesitated to post my very own (and very first) *howler* in front of
my friends and colleagues -- sheez, how *embarrassing!*  --  but if
the FAQ-only members are truly to know where they stand in the eyes of
MEG, then it is probably best that we be operating from the same base
of information.  

Now, I happen to think my FAQ messages of late concerning membership
and administrative issues were quite professional and reasonable,
focusing on finding fair solutions and compromises.  I soldiered on
without complaint in the face of cutting remarks and heckling, fully
aware that some MEGs here are so bitter that they seemed to be
objecting to my remarks simply because, well, they were *my* remarks.
 But I darn sure wasn't talking to myself in these FAQ posts -- lots
of *MEG* members replied to discuss the merits of these administrative
issues and advocate their own positions -- and we came thiiiiiiis
close to resolving some of them once and for all.  

What is most scary about this MEG howler, though, is that it does seem
to be an end run by our MEG members.  For instance, one MEG believes
we shouldn't discuss governance and has said this list is "for writing
FAQs."  This, to me, is nonsensical -- if there were not
administrative issues that must be resolved on FAQ, then there would
have been no reason for MEG to declare its Infinite Authority over FAQ
administration.  The fact that FAQers are trying to resolve our
administrative issues shows there is interest in doing so and a need
to do so.  After all, MEG spent *months* discussing its own internal
administrative issues; how can FAQ be expected to get anywhere if we
are forbidden to discuss our administration?

Nevertheless, as these few MEG members weren't able to convince the
FAQers that they shouldn't discuss FAQ policy and administration, then
MEG resorted to off-list threats against a FAQ member who was trying
to move things along.  It's a shame, really.  It suggests that if our
MEG/FAQ members can't make a persuasive case for their "Let's ignore
administration" position, they will resort to brute force.

What is also scary is that the MEG howler does not address what I
think is the real problem on this list that is keeping folks from
getting things done -- *rudeness.*  You know, plain old fashioned
personal attacks and snide remarks that have taken a lively and fun
list and made it a sewer, pretty much.  Twice now Tom has asked that
the rudeness stop, and some MEGs (and *only* the MEGs IMHO) persist
anyway, with the kind of rudeness that would *never* be tolerated on
our public lists.  

So, Heidi, I have some thoughts about your scrubbing proposal that
would probably make both of us happy.  But I don't think it wise for
me to explain further, lest I wind up being expelled from this group.
 Sorry.  

Anyway, here's the howler.  Enjoy!


****************

Dear Cindy --

I am writing on behalf of the admin team to ask you to stop flooding
the FAQ list with administrative messages. In the last five days you
have posted at least 40 messages to the FAQ list, only a small
fraction of which have had any relationship to the writing of FAQs.

You have stated that you would no longer be willing to lead the FAQ
list. Yet, you continue to post as if you are responsible for the
governance of the list. You dominate the FAQ list with lengthy,
detailed, and ever-changing position statements on FAQ governance
issues. Further, these messages frequently contain references to your
personal disagreements with MEG.

Your excessive posting on FAQ and MEG governance issues has, we
understand, led many FAQ members to lose interest in visiting the FAQ
list or writing FAQs. Even for those who are willing to read the list,
posts relating to the writing of FPs are lost in the flood of
ADMIN/MEMB messages. Therefore, your actions threaten the continued
viability of the FP project.

As you know from your own experience as a mod, the FAQ list has always
been an integral part of HPFGU, and it is part of our responsibility
as the HPFGU admin team to ensure that the FP project is moving
forward. That depends in large part on the interest and goodwill of
the FP team members. While some FAQ list members are able to tune out
your posts, it is clear that many others cannot. Your actions have
brought down the morale of the entire FAQ team.

We hope and believe that you really have the best interests of HPFGU
at heart and will reevaluate your actions in that light. We would like
to see you apply the bulk of your creative energies to writing FPs
rather than to addressing administrative issues. If we do not see a
change in the focus of your posts, we will unfortunately be forced to
ask you to resign from the FAQ list.

If you have any questions, please ask.

Debbie
for the List Admin Team


********************

Cindy -- spending the bulk of her energies on her Mysteries FP