MEG's Answers to Cindy's Questions

[abigailnus]

Hi,
 
Cindy asked some excellent questions, some of which were already
being debated on MEG. I can't answer all of them, because quite
frankly we don't have the answers yet, but I will answer those that
I can.
 
> 1. How are FAQ members to know when Interim Liaison Abigail is
> speaking in her official capacity on behalf of MEG versus on behalf of
> herself? Will she specify this in each message, or will another
> protocol be observed?
 
I believe that the simplest way about this is to assume that, unless
I (or whoever ends up as the liaison) state otherwise, the message
comes from me personally. Also, I don't see that there's going to be
a lot of room for confusion, as the kind of messages that the
liaison will deal with will probably start with the line 'I
forwarded this to MEG, and they said', or 'MEG has asked me to relay
that'. The liaison is first and foremost a member of FAQ, and only
then the MEG liaison. (For the rest of this message, I'll simply
write 'I' when answering questions about the liaison, because it
means typing less, but I'm referring to the person holding the
job, not myself spcifically.)
 
And for heaven's sake, it's not as if I'm President. There's no need
to capitalize interim liaison.
 
> 2. Does Abigail unilaterally decide which FAQ messages to forward to
> MEG?
 
The liaison will decide which messages should be forwarded to MEG - I
don't see this as being a difficult or obscure decision. If an issue
requires MEG permission, then obviously the liaison will forward it
to MEG, likewise if an FAQ member asks MEG a question.
 
> If so, will Abigail always advise FAQ when this has been done?
 
Yes, I will announce when a message has been forwarded to MEG, as
Cindy's was.
 
> If not, must FAQ members make an official request that a message be
> forwarded, and should that be done on FAQ, off-list to Abigail, or to
> MEG directly?
 
If I don't announce that I've forwarded a message, then FAQ members
may assume that I haven't done so, and that they should ask me to do
so if they want me to (since FAQ is not a high-volume list, I see no
problem with doing this on-list).
 
> Once an issue has been raised on MEG with the Liaison,
> will the Liaison provide periodic progress reports? If these reports
> are not forthcoming, may FAQ members inquire of MEG directly via the
> owners' account, or must they seek information only from Abigail on
> FAQ?
 
MEG would like to be able to commit to a time-table whenever FAQ, or
for that matter any listmember, asks us a question. Unfortunately,
due to RL considerations,this is often not possible. The direction
we're currently leaning in is that a preliminary response will be
posted within 48 hours, but this response might well be 'we're
looking into this and will keep you posted'. Since, as I said, RL
considerations often get in the way and ideas do get ignored
sometimes, I would consider it acceptable to be reminded about an
issue that awaits a MEG response, if a response has not been made
within the time period that MEG specified. I would then remind MEG
about the issue.
 
> 3. When Abigail forwards a FAQ issue to MEG, will she copy the
> transmittal message to FAQ?
 
I hadn't planned to do this.
 
> Will the transmittal message contain
> advocacy for Abigail's personal position or contain any sort of
> recommendation or commentary?
 
Since, as I said, I expect transmitted messages to be along the
lines of 'FAQ wants to post an ADMIN', I hardly think advocacy is
the right word. I will not include any personal opinions as part of
the forwarded message, but, of course, I will offer my opinions
separately when appropriate.
 
> Will she also forward or summarize
> competing points of view or opine on the weight of FAQ opinion in the
> transmittal?
 
If contrasting points of view are posted on FAQ and I feel that they
are germane to the issue and MEG needs to hear them, I will of
course forward them as well - that's the job description.
 
> Most importantly, will she copy FAQ on the MEG comments
> so that the FAQ members can take the MEG concerns into account in
> deciding how to adjust their proposal in the event the proposal is
> denied or modified or if MEG has other reservations?
 
No. The liaison will forward MEG's reply, which will naturally come
with an explanation. If FAQ feels that they can adjust their
proposal accordingly, then of course that new proposal will be re-
forwarded to MEG.
 
> 4. MEG selected Abigail and declared that she will serve until a
> Liaison is elected.
 
Actually, MEG didn't select me, I volunteered.
 
> Given that MEG selected Abigail and that MEGs
> outnumber non-MEGs on FAQ, will the MEG/FAQ members abstain from the
> selection of a Replacement Liaison so that it is not a foregone
> conclusion?
 
Why would the selection be foregone conclusion just because MEGs
outnumber non-MEGs? We don't all think alike, and there is hardly
only one person on FAQ who might be suitable as a liaison.
 
> Can the Replacement Liaison be a non-MEG who will then be
> admitted to MEG?
 
MEG has been discussing this issue - that's why FAQ hasn't yet begun
the process of selecting the permanent liason. MEG will keep you
apprised.
 
> Can FAQ or MEG change the Replacement Liaison if
> they are not happy with his/her performance, and how is this to be
> done?
 
If any FAQ member has a concern with the liaison which cannot
be resolved by direct communication, they may contact the Ombudself
(currently Pippin), whose function is to serve as a mediator in such
disagreements.
 
> Can FAQ select their nominee in some fashion other than an
> election?
 
What other fashion would be acceptable?
 
> Are there any current members of MEG who refuse to function
> as Liaison such that the FAQ list members can cross them off the list
> of potential nominees?
 
Again, until MEG makes some more concrete decisions about the nature
of the liaison, we don't know whether anybody will be ineligible.
When we begin the selection process, we will of course post a list
of eligible nominees.
 
> 5. Presumably, some MEG matters are not the concern of FAQ. What are
> the boundaries between what MEG considers confidential versus those
> that are not considered confidential?
 
This a difficult question, and one which MEG itself has been
debating for several months. I'm afraid I can't give a coherent
answer at this point, except that policy issues that don't concern
FAQ should not, of course, be discussed on that list.
 
> 6 Who decides who may be a member of FAQ? What is the maximum number
> of members MEG will allow FAQ to be?
 
Since MEG has existed the FAQ list has always been under its
supervision and membership decisions were either implicitly or
explicitly approved by MEG. FAQ members have been chosen by
different means throughout its existence. The most recent group of
members was selected by the FAQ membership, under the authority
granted by MEG to Cindy to jumpstart the project. In the past, new
members were selected and/or approved by the mods. At this point,
MEG has not yet formulated a policy regarding member selection for
FAQ, but we feel that it is important to resolve the differences
between the two groups before coming to a decision on this subject.
 
> 7. Do MEGs have an automatic right to join FAQ upon request? Must
> MEG members write FAQs as a condition of membership, or may they
> observe?
 
In the past, MEGs were automatically allowed to be members of FAQ if
they so chose, and felt that they had something to contribute to the
project.
 
> 8. Have any FAQ policy decision been made by MEG already? Are there
> any current policies of FAQ that MEG wishes to or plans to overturn?
 
I'm going to need you to be a little more specific in your
definition of policy, Cindy.
 
> 9. Does MEG have the power to moderate, demand the resignation of, or
> oust a FAQ member?
 
Yes. However, moderation is an action appropriate for public lists,
as it is an "inculturation," educational, and control measure. MEG
expects that the members of FAQ should not need this type of
support -- all candidates for FAQ, to be effective in the purpose of
this list, will have been on the public lists for a sufficient
duration to be familiar with the list rules. If a member of FAQ (or
MEG, for that matter) were to severly step out of line, we would
demand their resignation. If they then refused to resign, we would
consider what further action to take.
 
> If so, will there be a system of howlers before
> this is done?
 
No. Moderation, and to a lesser degree, howlers, have always been
intended as more educational than disciplinary in nature. [It's
perhaps unfortunate that the slang "howler" became attached to the
offlist reminders; it carries a quite negative connotation.] MEG has
always understood that there are many list rules, and that it takes
some time to "learn the ropes," and that anyone can slip up.
However, as stated above, FAQ members are expected to already have
been around long enough to know "the ropes," and administering the
formal systems of the public list is quite effort enough.
Disciplinary issues on FAQ have been extremely rare, we hope this
will continue, and a case-by-case handling based on each situation,
precedent, and (when it is finalized) the Code of Conduct should
be sufficient for a list of FAQ's maturity.
 
> Will all FAQ members learn of any disciplinary action
> taken or howlers sent to any other FAQ members,
 
Yes, when we believe it is warranted.
 
> Can a FAQ member advise other FAQ members
> of disciplinary action taken?
 
They may do so if they wish.
 
> Can a FAQ member complain to MEG (via
> the liaison) about rudeness on FAQ or rudeness off-list by a FAQ
> member or MEG?
 
Yes, just like any other listmember.
 
> 10. MEG has declared that "members of FAQ are responsible for much of
> the governance and certain policy decisions of the list." Which
> portions of governance and which policy decisions are the
> responsibility of FAQ and which are the responsibility of MEG?
 
Again, this is being debated by MEG itself, and we will keep you
advised.
 
> 11. MEG has declared that "FAQ list must adhere to those policies
> that MEG determines apply to all of the lists in the HP4GU family of
> lists." Which policies are those? Does this extend to matters such
> as snipping and combining and attribution as stated in the HBF, or do
> you mean something else? Will MEG provide the non-MEG FAQ members
> with a statement of its community-wide or MEG internal policies on
> matters such as membership, discipline, governance, pulling rank, and
> scrubbing so that FAQ members will know which MEG policies apply to
> FAQ? Are FAQ members allowed to object to or contest the merits of
> (that is, weigh in on) these internal MEG policies that apply to FAQ?
 
MEG is in the process of formalizing a Code of Conduct, which will
set forth in writing existing standards of behavior on all HPFGU
lists.
 
 
> 12. Why does every moderator of this list retain the power to invite
> a new member, which is presumably something the FAQ (or the MEG list?)
> list would decide.
 
As a matter of convenience, and because we don't expect anyone to
abuse the privilege.
 
> 13. Heidi is not a MEG. Why was Heidi chosen as the only non-MEG FAQ
> to have heightened security privileges?
 
The group chosen was chosen to represent a cross-section of the FAQ
population. Heidi is a non-MEG. Also, the FPs are stored on a FA
server.
 
> 14. Once FAQ decides a FAQ policy question, must the MEG members of
> FAQ abide by that decision until such time as it is overturned by MEG?

Yes, as does everyone else on the FAQ list, including non-MEGs.
 
> 15. What is the current governing structure of MEG, and what are the
> zones of responsibility of each MEG, e.g. ombudself, facilitators,
> committee heads, etc.?
 
Again, this is being formulated in the Code of Conduct.
 
> 16. Prior to making the unilateral changes to moderator privileges
> for security reasons, did any FAQ member make any threat to delete the
> FAQ list? Has any FAQ member ever threatened to delete the FAQ list,
> and if so, why is that person still a member of the FAQ list? Why
> were the remaining trustworthy members of the FAQ list who did *not*
> threaten to delete the list not advised off-list and in confidence
> that these steps would be taken?
 
No. However, the other, and more dangerous of the two powers
curtailed was the ability to change the moderator privileges of
group members. So, for example, at this point I don't have the power
to delete the list, but I do have the power to give myself that
power.
 
There has been an instance in which a member of FAQ unilaterally
curtailed the privileges of other FAQ members in such a way that
they were unable to change them back.
 
Abigail
For the list administration