MEG's Answers to Tom

[abigailnus]

Hi,
 
As with the responses to Cindy's questions, it isn't in MEG's power
to answer all of these questions, as some of these issues are still
being discussed. Furthermore, there is some overlap between Tom's
questions and Cindy's, and I won't duplicate answers, to avoid
confusion.
 
> 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?
 
MEG's policy regarding FAQ membership is still being formulated, and
this is only one aspect of it.
 
At this point, MEG does not intend to concern itself with FAQ's
internal matters. However, we would hope that FAQ would keep its
internal policies aligned with the spirit so well-expressed by Cindy
in a recruitment email:
 
>>You can put in as much or as little time as you like, and you can
work on an essay on your own or with a group. We're very flexible
about most everything.>>
 
>
> 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?
 
The writing, production, and publication of FPs and internal matters
which don't concern other HPfGU lists.
 
>
> - For which FAQ list governance issues are MEG responsible?
 
External matters which affect the other HPfGU list (such as posting
an ADMIN on main). MEG is also the overarching group in charge of
FAQ, which means that the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the
FP project does get carried out falls to MEG.
 
>
> - (Re: above) Please list these.
>
> - In which cases does MEG retain the right to override FAQ decisions?
 
When the decisions affect the other HPfGU lists, or when we believe
that the future of the FP project is is jeopardy.
 
>
> - Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Overrides can be contested by appealing to MEG via the liaison.
 
>
> - 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?
 
See above answers regarding governance issues.
 
>
> - How are overrides decided?
>
> - Can overrides be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Quite simply, this issue has never come up, and therefore there is
no protocol for it.
 
>
>
> 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?
 
Answered in Cindy's response.
 
> 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?
 
To the same extent that any decision made by a group of human beings
is subject to change.
 
>
> - According to what process is this agreement going to take place?
 
Through a process of election.
 
>
> - How is this process to be determined?
 
MEG is still discussing the selection of a liaison. When these
decisions are made, we will open the floor to FAQ. We have several
possibilities in mind for the liaison, and we'd like to have FAQ's
input in the matter.
 
>
> - Does MEG possess the authority to override FAQ's decisions
> regarding the liaison?
 
No.
 
>
> - Can FAQ contest any override? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Irrelevant. See above.
 
>
> - How are nominations to be proposed, and to whom?
 
Again, as soon as MEG completes its discussion process, it will
present FAQ with several options. When one is selected, the
nominations will be proposed accordingly.
 
>
> - How - and where - is a complete list of nominees going to be made
> available for all members of both groups to consider?
 
When the selection process begins, a list of nominees will of course
be posted.
 
>
> - By whom - and how - will the final decision be made?
 
By the members of FAQ.
 
>
> - Is the decision final?
 
The suggestion has been made the the liaison job will be term-
limited. This is being discussed by MEG and will also be brought to
FAQ for consideration. At this point, we had considered that the
person selected as liaison would serve in that capacity until such
time as he or she decides that they no longer wish to do so.
 
>
> - If decided by MEG, can the decision be contested? If so, how? If
> not, why not?
 
Irrelevant, see above.
 
>
> - How long will the liaison serve?
 
See above.
 
>
> - In the eventual event that a liaison is to be replaced, what will
> the procedure be at that time?
 
The same procedure in which the original liaison was chosen.
 
>
> - When will the final decision regarding the liaison be made?
 
We haven't decided on a timetable yet, but we hope to make a final
decision by the end of this month (November).
 
>
> - Can this timeline be contested? If so, how? If not, why not?
 
Yes, by saying so.
 
>
>
> 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.
 
Members of FAQ who are also members of MEG retain their right, as of
course does every member of FAQ, to discuss whichever subject it
enters into their mind to discuss. The liaison is simply the only
person on FAQ empowered to make policy statements on behalf of MEG.
 
>
>
> 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.
 
Amanda's post was written and approved before the final decision
about the installation of a liaison was made. It was decided that,
as the person who had made the security changes and written the
announcement, she should announce the changes. There were several
communications that needed to be made to MEG in a rather short time.
Amanda's notification to FAQ was the final step in an executive
decision made and carried out before the appointment of the interim
liaison or the current MEG-policy discussion restriction.
 
We can see that the timing was confusing; we apologize for the two-
hour delay, so that Amanda's post appeared after Debbie's.
 
Clearly, if Amanda *had* posted an unauthorized Admin, MEG would
already have clarified this to FAQ and taken appropriate action
towards Amanda.
 
>
>
> 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.

Questions of MEG policy which doesn't involve FAQ should not be
discussed on FAQ, period. Questions which do concern FAQ will be
forwarded to MEG by the liaison. MEG will discuss these questions
and return its answer via the liaison.
 
>
>
> 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?
 
Questions that involve both MEG and FAQ issues (Example: Abigail,
can we post an ADMIN to the main list?)
 
>
> - What - if any - questions are to be sent directly to the liaison?
 
Personal questions (Example: Abigail, what's your favorite band?)
 
>
> - What questions are to be sent to HFfGU-owner?
 
Questions which involve the questioner personally, outside of his or
her role as a member of FAQ (Example: Abigail, why was my post
rejected?)
 
>
> - What, if any, are the distinctions and guidelines that FAQ members
> are to observe when deciding to whom questions should be sent?
 
I just outlined them.
 
> 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.
 
I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying here, Tom.
 
>
>
> - - -
>
> 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.'
 
Measures which, if followed correctly, reduce the risk of the HPfGU
lists from being hacked. This involves protecting the lists
themselves as well as member accounts.
 
>
> - List the `security measures.' If this cannot be done, then why?
 
Mostly the measure involve selecting an appropriate password (not
one's birthday), frequent changes of that password, and the Yahoo
Secret Question feature (which allows one to enter one's account
without a password and is an easy back door). Security measures
also include limiting the number of people with the power to do
things that could destroy or damage the list.
 
>
>
> 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?
 
In cases in which members of MEG feel that an action needs to be
taken quickly, without consulting the entire list in the form of a
poll, which is the normal decision-making tool on MEG.
 
>
> - By whom may `executive decisions' be made?
 
An executive decision requires approval by three members of MEG.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' decided upon collectively
> by the members of MEG?
 
Once a decision is made, it must be ratified retroactively by MEG
with a poll.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' supported by MEG?
 
Assuming that the decision is ratified, it is supported to the same
degree that any MEG decision is supported.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG
> binding over the members of MEG?
 
Assuming that the decision is ratified, it is binding to the same
degree that any MEG decision is binding.
 
>
> - To what degree are `executive decisions' made by members of MEG
> binding over the members of FAQ?
 
Assuming that the decision is ratified and that it affects FAQ, it
is binding to the same degree that any MEG decision is binding.
 
>
> - Can `executive decisions' be contested or appealed? If so, how? If
> not, why not?
 
The decision can be contested by applying to MEG to reconsider it.
 
>
>
> 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?
 
Kelley is a MEG. An executive decision requires three MEGs to pass. A
member of MEG may make decisions regarding FAQ even if he or she is
not a member of FAQ.
 
>
> - To what degree are decisions made by a non-FAQ member that is a
> member of MEG binding on the members of FAQ?
 
In exactly the same way that decisions made by any MEG member are
binding.
 
>
> - May decisions made by a non-FAQ member of MEG be contested? If so,
> how? If not, why not?
 
Just as decisions by MEGs who are members of FAQ may be contested,
yes.
 
>
>
> 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?'
 
Until FAQ can make an organized decision (such as, for example, with
the help of a poll) otherwise.

>
> - Define `input,' as in, 'how much?'
 
I have no idea - this will have to be decided on a case-by-case
basis.
 
>
> - 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?
 
At this point, without a specific scenario or reference, we would
say if a decision adversely affects other HPfGU groups, threatens the
future of the FP project, offends or hurts a listmember, or is a
security breach, then MEG can and will overturn it.
 
>
>
> 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:
 
No.

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

>
> - 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?
 
FAQ should revisit the issue of who has moderator powers, and
moderator authority, later when a liaison has been elected and
mechanisms for security have been established.
 
>
>
> 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.'
 
I am unable to do this, as MEG has not yet formulated a policy in
this matter.
 
>
> - Specifically define FAQ's role in the decision.
 
See above.
 
>
> - To what degree does MEG retain the right to overturn FAQ decisions
> regarding this particular sphere of FAQ operations?
 
I answered this already.
 
>
> - Can MEG overturns of FAQ decisions be contested? If so, how? If
> not, why not?
 
Again, I answered this.
 
>
>
> 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.'
 
I can't. It hasn't been determined yet.
 
>
> - Elaborate in the following context: `Optimal number of moderators'
> as determined by whom?
 
FAQ, in alignment with MEG policies.
 
>
>
> 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 don't understand the need for this restatement. Amanda was
speaking in an official capacity on behalf of MEG. I believe I've
just clarified her statement, again speaking in an official capacity
on behalf of MEG. To restate what has already been said and
elaborated upon is nothing more then make-work.
 
Abigail
For the list administration