Questions for Abigail (WAS FAQ roles, and Dark Mark)

[cindysphynx]

Hi
 
The eye-opening discussion between Tom and Amanda has caused a few more
questions to pop into my head.
 
Some history for our newer members, and then some questions . . . 
 
First, Amanda wrote:
 
***************
 
You were not here, I guess, in the very busy days when the current set
of
FAQs was being produced. There was actually a lot to be done in the
link-checking and reading-over department. I didn't do all of it, by any
stretch.
 
AND
 
Not everyone on this list is here to write; there are FAQ
production support roles.
 
AND
 
As soon as new FAQs get close to roughed out, some of us who are here to
support the writers can get involved again. Why do you think I've been
urging people to work on stuff? I can't do what I do, until some of you
writer-folk do what you do, and I have not liked feeling superfluous.
 
 
********************
 
Ah, yes.  Amanda is talking about the heady days of last fall.  Yes, I
remember it well.  Last November, we took all of the old FPs and the new
FPs, re-formatted them, and moved them to FA's servers.  It took a lot
of leadership and coordination and nagging to get that done, and someone
whose opinion I value very much once told me that pushing that project
along successfully was my HPfGU legacy.  High praise, it was, coming
from this particular person!
 
A lot of people assisted in that effort, of course.  We rounded up
people who had no time to write but who could code (Marina).  We needed
lots of people to check links (Parker, Sheryll).  Theoretically, we
needed people to proofread, although we never brought in anyone for that
purpose because everyone here is a terrific writer, editor and
proofreader.  Indeed, I myself read and edited the Snape FAQ and
probably every other FAQ that has been produced here since I joined.
They teach that in the better law schools nowadays!  :-D
 
But that was then and this is now.  The needs of our group have changed,
IMHO.  We aren't moving to a new server now.  We don't need lurkers.  Or
editors.  Or proofreaders.  Or coders.  Or link checkers.  Or advisors.
OoP was released five months ago, and we need people to *write* FPs.  
 
I think this is something that FAQ (or MEG, depending on who calls the
shots around here) will need to take up.  As it stands, we have an
imbalance between those who work and those who lurk (but who
nevertheless comment with great frequency on administrative issues).
This disconnect between who works and who opines is going to create
problems for us in the future that dwarf the problems we are having now,
not to mention the morale problems that occur when someone who isn't
working tries to force their preferences on those who are working.  
 
For instance, I really think I'm going to need a lot of help on the
Mysteries FP.  That thing is gonna be huge, and it's gonna be great!
But if I am to do the whole thing by myself, it won't be finished before
Book 6.  So I would like to see us bring in lots of new people who
*will* actually write something.  Alas, others who do not wish to work
seem to have an equal say to those who do the work.  And if those who do
not work are on MEG, they have an even greater say than I do because
they can go on MEG and vote to slap down any FAQ proposal they don't
like.  Oh, yuck.
 
How about this, then?  How about if our link checkers and coders and
editors take a little break -- a little voluntary sabbatical from FAQ
status here?  That way, those doing the work can discuss their work and
can discuss FAQ administration without undue interference by those who
are not doing the work but who are waiting for others to get crackin'.
That seems only fair to me.  
 
Just to complete the thought, then, I imagine that our core remaining
FAQ team would look like this (including our indispensable tech types):
 
Abigail - Harry 
Ali - Quidditch
Charis - Harry
Cindy - Mysteries
Debbie - DEs
Dicey - Harry
Derannimer - DEs
Eileen - Crouch and Harry
Elkins - Crouch
Heidi - Law and FA Liaison
Jo - Harry
Joy - Webmistress
Gail - Lupin
Paul - Tech
Penny - Harry
Phyllis - Harry
Morgan - Lupin
Tom - DEs
 
That's about 18 people of about 39.  If the others took a sabbatical,
then we could bring in *at least* 21 bright, talented new members who
would agree to write FPs without making our membership too large.  Can
you imagine how much actual work would get done?
 
Then, once the team had some FPs, we could reach out to get help with
coding and proofreading, if we need it.  There's no reason at all that
the people who helped us with things like proofreading must be on FAQ -
when Jen P left, she mentioned that she'd help with coding if we need it
("If you need some help coding, just let me know.")  So we could keep
folks like Jen and Amanda and other non-writing specialists in our back
pockets and think of them as reinforcements if we ever need their
assistance.  
 
Thoughts?  FAQers?  MEG (via Abigail)?
 
Sorry for the lengthy explanation, but before FAQ can evaluate that
proposal, it will need to check in with MEG, I guess.  So here are the
questions that will require MEG's decision:
 
1.  MEG, what is the FAQ policy concerning sabbaticals for members?  In
FAQ Message 2018, MEG seems to indicate that those who leave a support
list of HPfGU cannot automatically return upon request.  Is the FAQ list
free to adopt a different policy?
 
2.  Is there any reason for proofers and editors and coders and link
checkers to be members of FAQ at all?  Can't FAQ just send out completed
FAQs to volunteers like Amanda and Jen P and they can edit or code
without ever being members of FAQ at all?
 
3.  Does MEG have a policy prohibiting or specifically authorizing the
presence of lurkers - those who do no day-to-day work?  Must FAQ follow
the same policy, or are we free to have a different policy?
 
4.  This last question goes back to Debbie's Prime Directive, and I
apologize for omitting it earlier.  I was hoping that MEG could explain
how exactly the non-FAQ members of MEG learn enough about what goes on
here to have any meaningful opinions about what FAQ should do?  In other
words, how do the non-FAQ members of MEG (Grey Wolf, Kelley, Judy,
Kirstini, Michelle, Petra, Saitaina, Wendy) have any idea how to vote?
Do they abstain due to lack of information?  Or do they defer to the
opinions of their colleagues who are on FAQ?
 
That's it for now, Abigail!  Thanks in advance for your reply!
 
Cindy 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]