From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct  1 13:48:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 13:48:12 -0000
Subject: I Think I'll Update Pettigrew
Message-ID: <blelus+b8kb@eGroups.com>

Hi,

Well, that pretty much says it all.  I'll do an update of the
Pettigrew FP.

Cindy




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  1 21:54:19 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:54:19 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <bl9d48+u23a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blfieb+smhq@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> With all due respect, I don't think periodic reports from the FAQ
> subgroups will work.  This opinion is based on what has or has not
> worked in the past in terms of moving the group forward and getting
> things done.
> 
> During the time I led the FAQ group as a moderator (October 2002-March
> 2003), I prepared monthly progress reports.  I considered having
> others do this, but I decided that approach would not likely move the
> group forward.  One reason I believed this was that calling for status
> reports had been tried in the past, with a rather lackluster response.

Very well, I bow to your expertise on this subject.  However, I'm not sure the 
solution is, as you suggest,

> OK.  Let's not have a "leader," then.  Instead, we could have a
> "Taskmaster."  The Taskmaster role is something the 8-person Moderator
> Team used to keep us organized and moving forward.  One person (until
> I took over the FAQ list in October 2001, it was me) would post a
> weekly list of tasks in progress, including issue-spotting new matters
> and proposing solutions or declaring consensus on things.  

Frankly, I think this is a case of if it walks like a duck, but putting aside the 
question of whether or not we want a leader, I think we're in much worse 
trouble.  We can go ahead and select a leader or a taskmaster or a grand 
poobah, but it won't change the fact that at this point, Cindy, you and I are 
talking to each other.  Before we select a leader, we might want to make 
certain that we still have a group.

>>Further complicating things is that some of our members may have
 stepped up their involvement in HPfGU list administration, which may
 deplete their time available for the FAQ list. We have 38 members,
 but only 13 have signed up with a house at all, and of those, very few
 have posted anything substantive to this list recently concerning the
 writing of a FAQ.>>

I think this a chicken and egg situation.  You probably saw on the list that I 
recently joined up as a list elf, and one of the reasons that I chose to accept 
the task was the silence on this group, which had already been going on for 
two weeks.  It's true that many of the new elves are also members of FAQ, but 
our duties at this point are light, and I don't think that they preclude working 
on FPs.  

So, let me first give a shout-out to anyone who might be reading this message.  
Are you out there?  Did you even notice that the FAQ list went dark for a few 
hours earlier this week?  Are you still interested in writing FPs?  Just respond to 
this post with a Yes or No.  Please.

Abigail
Noting with horror the new color scheme.  Cindy, I assume we have you to 
thank for this?




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Oct  1 23:06:28 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:06:28 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfieb+smhq@eGroups.com>
References: <blfieb+smhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1065049685.1F1BE50@w5.dngr.org>


> --- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
>
We have 38 members,
>  but only 13 have signed up with a house at all, and of those, very few
>  have posted anything substantive to this list recently concerning the
>  writing of a FAQ.>>
>
Abigail wrote:

> I think this a chicken and egg situation.  You probably saw on the list 
> that I
> recently joined up as a list elf, and one of the reasons that I chose 
> to accept
> the task was the silence on this group, which had already been going on 
> for
> two weeks.  It's true that many of the new elves are also members of 
> FAQ, but
> our duties at this point are light, and I don't think that they 
> preclude working
> on FPs.
>
> So, let me first give a shout-out to anyone who might be reading this 
> message.
> Are you out there?  Did you even notice that the FAQ list went dark for 
> a few
> hours earlier this week?  Are you still interested in writing FPs?  
> Just respond to
> this post with a Yes or No.  Please.

What do you mean 'went dark'?

Also - my answer is a definite yes - but I still don't plan to sign up 
for a house. I have responsibility for the legal issues faq, which will 
be wrapped up this week or next - I worked on the stouffer section today 
- and the fanfic faq, which I haven't had many recs for, and thus I'm 
not really in a position to update at the moment.

Zat ok?

Heidi



From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  1 23:27:06 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 23:27:06 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <1065049685.1F1BE50@w5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <blfnsa+lc7a@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
 
> What do you mean 'went dark'?

Well, I didn't witness it myself - by the time I woke up the situation had 
resolved itself - but apparently on Monday Jo Serenadust visited the FAQ 
website and discovered that the message database had been blanked.  
Within a short while (possibly as little as an hour) they were all back, and 
the consensus is that this was probably a Yahoo!mort glitch.  But don't 
you find it telling that our entire database vanishes and the only people 
who get upset are the list elves?  It tells me that people aren't visiting the 
website.
> 
> Also - my answer is a definite yes - but I still don't plan to sign up 
> for a house. I have responsibility for the legal issues faq, which will 
> be wrapped up this week or next - I worked on the stouffer section today 
> - and the fanfic faq, which I haven't had many recs for, and thus I'm 
> not really in a position to update at the moment.
> 
> Zat ok?

Excellent.  Thank you very much, madam.

Abigail
Who realizes that she's beginning to sound rather bossy and shrill.  I really 
don't mean to, and this is the reason why I'm a bad leader.  I don't want to 
make anyone feel bad, but I do believe it's important that we get this list 
back on its feet.




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Oct  1 23:31:09 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:09 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfnsa+lc7a@eGroups.com>
References: <blfnsa+lc7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1065051176.3604D0F1@r5.dngr.org>

Well, personally, of course I don't visit the yahoogroup. I get the 
posts via email. And given the number of groups I manage, I also know 
that yahoomort glitches like that sometimes. And I know from the Dark 
Days of Sinead that if something is deleted, you have to call yahoo and 
beg for it to come back and they'll likely only do it if you're a high 
profile website with ny times press cuttings and an obvious hacking.

So I'm trying to sound soothing and I know I'm not succeeding but I 
don't think the fact that a lot of people didn't notice this is evidence 
of anything. Those who get the list on email or digest would, inherently 
*not* notice.

Heidi

On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 7:27PM -0500, abigailnus wrote:
> Real-To:  "abigailnus" <abigailnus at yahoo.com>
>
> --- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Heidi Tandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
>
>>  What do you mean 'went dark'?
>
> Well, I didn't witness it myself - by the time I woke up the situation 
> had
> resolved itself - but apparently on Monday Jo Serenadust visited the 
> FAQ
> website and discovered that the message database had been blanked.
> Within a short while (possibly as little as an hour) they were all 
> back, and
> the consensus is that this was probably a Yahoo!mort glitch.  But don't
> you find it telling that our entire database vanishes and the only 
> people
> who get upset are the list elves?  It tells me that people aren't 
> visiting the
> website.
>>
>>  Also - my answer is a definite yes - but I still don't plan to sign up
>>  for a house. I have responsibility for the legal issues faq, which 
>> will
>>  be wrapped up this week or next - I worked on the stouffer section 
>> today
>>  - and the fanfic faq, which I haven't had many recs for, and thus I'm
>>  not really in a position to update at the moment.
>>
>>  Zat ok?
>
> Excellent.  Thank you very much, madam.
>
> Abigail
> Who realizes that she's beginning to sound rather bossy and shrill.  I 
> really
> don't mean to, and this is the reason why I'm a bad leader.  I don't 
> want to
> make anyone feel bad, but I do believe it's important that we get this 
> list
> back on its feet.
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct  1 23:59:03 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 19:59:03 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfnsa+lc7a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c38877$fe28d340$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
>But don't 
>you find it telling that our entire database vanishes and the only
people 
>who get upset are the list elves?  It tells me that people aren't
visiting the 
>website.
 
I don't think it is telling.  I receive individual e-mails, so I
wouldn't know if the FAQ list were down.  
 
I wouldn't say the list elves have a monopoly on being upset, either.
Jo didn't mention it to me, so I didn't know.  Had she done so, I would
have wrung my hands and moaned.  :-D
 

>Abigail
>Who realizes that she's beginning to sound rather bossy and shrill.  I
really 
>don't mean to, and this is the reason why I'm a bad leader.  I don't
want to 
>make anyone feel bad, but I do believe it's important that we get this
list 
>back on its feet.

Nah, not bossy and shrill.  Concerned and rightfully so.  I'll send a
separate response on the merits, Abigail.
 
Cindy



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1784493/R=0/id=noscript/SIG=11q7p9e7k/*http:/webevents.yahoo
.com/universal/intolerablecruelty/> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1784493/rand=499951168> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Oct  2 00:13:44 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:13:44 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfieb+smhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blfqjo+oh7d@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote (about having a leader):

> Frankly, I think this is a case of if it walks like a duck, but
>putting aside the question of whether or not we want a leader, I
>think we're in much worse trouble.  We can go ahead and select a
>leader or a taskmaster or a grand poobah, but it won't change the
>fact that at this point, Cindy, you and I are 
> talking to each other.  

<huge grin>

I didn't slide that "taskmaster = leader" thing by you, huh?  :-D

Yeah, there ain't much difference between a leader and a taskmaster,
although there is some.  That said, I think you may be onto something
when you say the problem may be bigger than just selecting a
leader/taskmaster.

I think you and I have a difference of opinion (although certainly not
a fatal one) on the value of having a leader as a solution to what
ails this group.  I'm not sure that solution would work, but it would
be the least drastic of the solutions that leap to mind, and we do
know that it works, at least.  

I must digress to make an observation, though.  When we first started
thinking about whether we wanted a BD, some folks were initially
enthusiastic and then inexplicably reversed course.  I had an off-list
with someone about these issues, and the person said that some FAQ
members didn't want a leader because they knew *Cindy* could never
work under someone else's direction -- even though I was advocating
selection of a new leader!  So if this is true -- and I have no idea
if it is -- and folks are really, truly leaving us leaderless for that
reason . . .  Then I guess we're in serious trouble indeed.


>Before we select a leader, we might want to make 
> certain that we still have a group.


Yeah.  I guess that's true.  

Abigail, I think you and I are making some assumptions here, and they
may not be warranted.  Months back when I was pushing us along, we
adopted this idea of a House System.  My own opinion is that having
people be responsible for creation of an FP by themselves (as opposed
to working in groups) was unworkable, based on past experience on this
list.  Lupin is probably the best example -- not only has it been in
progress for *years* under Amy's stewardship, we can't even get Amy to
send us a copy of what has been accomplished so far.

Nevertheless, that "solo author" system is the system we now have,
more or less.  Heidi is doing a legal issues FAQ.  Eileen and Elkins
have Crouch.  I have Pettigrew.  Penny has Shipping and Hermione and
maybe something else.  Ali has Quidditch.  Dicey has Sirius.  This
leads me to think that folks don't want to work under the House
System, and if not, the argument that we don't need a leader because
the House System will lead us becomes unpersuasive.

So the issue may not be whether we have a group, but whether we have a
*cohesive* group.  I would submit that we do not.  If we won't have a
leader, and if most people here ignore posts to this list and choose
not to engage and go off into their separate corners to write (or
procrastinate on writing an FP,) then I think we won't see many new FP
essays.

What to do?

I dunno.  One problem we have here is that FAQ membership carries with
it no obligations at all.  Folks can and do lurk, popping up to offer
an opinion or deliver a headshot, and then they can go right back to
lurking.  There's no requirement that anyone contribute anything ever.

So -- and I'm just brainstorming here -- one thing we could do is just
ask people to commit to *something* or, if they are too busy, take a
sabbatical until they have time to help.  Anyone taking a break would
be welcome back anytime, of course.  (Otherwise, no one will ever risk
taking a sabbatical, and we have to be mindful of fundamental fairness
and all.)  Then we'd have an idea of whether we have a group of
committed individuals and its size, and we could bring in a bunch of
new people who *will* contribute if needed.  Some people who serve
specialized functions could be exempted, of course.  Paul, Steve,
Naama, Porphyria, and there are probably a couple of others.

We could also decide that no one can write a FAQ on their own, or
maybe that any solo FAQs have to be completed in six months.  Or
something.  Like I said, I'm just thinking out loud.  I have no idea
how that sort of thing could be enforced, especially if no one is in
charge here.

Finally, let me just add the usual disclaimers.  Although I am writing
in very blunt terms, I mean no offense and am not singling anyone out.
  So don't freak out on me, OK?  ;-)  I do understand Abigail's
frustration, and I am quite sympathetic.  It's just that I've seen
this sort of problem in our community again and again and again, so
it's hard to get too worked up about it.  I'm starting to think it
just comes with the territory.

> Abigail
> Noting with horror the new color scheme.  Cindy, I assume we have
>you to thank for this?

I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me.  :-D

Cindy -- who thinks of "The Flintstones" when she hears the phrase
"Grand Poobah"




From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Oct  2 02:38:09 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 21:38:09 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
References: <bl1bu5+av7h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <017301c3888e$396c5380$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

<<<<<<<<On another matter, should I come to any conclusions with regards to the silence on the Harry FP front?  Before OOP, there were four people other then myself who had signed up to this group - Penny, Ali, Dicey and Phyllis.  Are they no longer interested in this FP?  I'd like to know one way or another, so that I can decide if I want to join another group or start work on my own.>>>>>>>>>

I apologize for the silence.  I'd actually been ruminating some on how much, if any, time commitment I want to make.  I think I've concluded that yes, I do still want to make a contribution to the Harry FP, but I need it to be a very manageable chunk.  I've got alot going on in RL.  Abigail, could you possibly post the latest outline version you have on the Harry FP?  This would help me identify which chunk(s) I can commit to working on.

RE: the FAQ List going dark: I too am on individual emails for this group, so wouldn't have noticed this event.  This is, in fact, the only HPFGU list in which I receive individual emails any longer.

Cindy wrote:

<<<<<Nevertheless, that "solo author" system is the system we now have,
more or less.  Heidi is doing a legal issues FAQ.  Eileen and Elkins
have Crouch.  I have Pettigrew.  Penny has Shipping and Hermione and
maybe something else.  Ali has Quidditch.  Dicey has Sirius.  This
leads me to think that folks don't want to work under the House
System, and if not, the argument that we don't need a leader because
the House System will lead us becomes unpersuasive.>>>>>>>>>

:::::Snorts:::::

Yeah, well, I have/had a few more than 3 FPs.  Or, at least, I did initially individually author some 9 FPs before my daughter was born.  The FPs that I wrote that have not been revised or claimed for revision by anyone else are: Hermione, Romance Pairings, JKR, Religion, Universal Appeal of HP and Hogwarts.  I can add Geography to that list based on mine and Steve's Geography presentation at Nimbus.  I substantially expanded the existing Geography FP.  I've already told Steve that he can publish our presentation on the Lexicon, so does that present a copyright issue if the material is duplicated on the FP site, Heidi?  I'm not even sure if Steve would be amenable to it being duplicated .... I'm just asking if it was even possible.

I recently was given very short notice to write up something on Hermione for FAP (thanks, Heidi!  <g>).  I made substantial progress, even with the short time-frame, on updating the Hermione FP to reflect OoP.  However, I didn't consult HPfGU discussions for this update, so if it were desired that I do that, it would take considerably longer for me to update it.  As is, I could send an updated version of Hermione in the next week.  Is the preferred technical protocol for me to upload it as a Word document or use Word's "save as HTML" feature and then upload it?

Steve asked me to do an update on the whole Shipping debates for the Lexicon ...... another copyright question for Heidi would be whether we could duplicate the material over here, assuming Steve was amenable to this.

JKR --- updating it would take about 1 hour max.  She hasn't exactly been granting a lot of interviews in the last 2 years.  She got married, had a baby and earned another multi-million dollars.  <g>

Universal Appeal and Religion ---- updating would probably take *some* amount of time, and I'll try to get to it before year-end.

Hogwarts: I have no desire to continue this FP, as it is very time-consuming.

As for the others that I initially authored, I believe Mysteries and Govt have both been claimed by other individuals or teams.  Correct?

LEADERSHIP -- I mainly have a question.  We had a very .....er.......heated discussion about adding Michelle to this group in August.  Was this issue ever resolved?  Did we want to discuss adding her as a member?  Did we need to discuss protocol and procedure with respect to adding new members in general?  Is Michelle even still interested?

Penny



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




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Thu Oct  2 11:58:46 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:58:46 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfieb+smhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blh3tm+6k3p@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> 
wrote:

> So, let me first give a shout-out to anyone who might be reading 
this message.  
> Are you out there?  Did you even notice that the FAQ list went dark 
for a few 
> hours earlier this week?  Are you still interested in writing FPs?  
Just respond to 
> this post with a Yes or No.  Please.

I'm still here and still assigned to *Slytherin* which has 
responsibility for DEs and Aurors/government update.  An outline was 
posted, and I believe the group has agreed to start by tackling the 
DEs, which is probably the most difficult piece of the project.  I 
think the next step is for Tom, Derannimer and myself to pick 
sections to work on.  

Another possibility is that one of us could switch over to updating 
the government FP (which is quite out of date) while the other two 
work on the DEs.  Since that's what I had originally planned to do, 
along with the Aurors (when Porphyria and I had this responsibility) 
and had in fact started on it, perhaps I should keep that side and 
leave the DEs to Tom and Derannimer.  

I think one of the problems with the larger teams is that no member 
of the team feels like they can dive into working on an FP until 
everyone else on the team weighs in.  This suggests to me that 
perhaps we should work in very small groups of no more than 3, where 
people can work semi-autonomously and report in to the group.  
Perhaps everyone who's ready to begin should just shout out what 
they're planning to do, as Penny and Heidi have just done.

> Noting with horror the new color scheme.  

Erm.  I agree that the burnt orange is a bit over the top and makes 
the menu very hard to read for us old folks who need reading 
glasses.  The lighter orange is just a wee bit more readable.

Debbie
who's noticed just how hard Abigail has been working here




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Thu Oct  2 12:18:08 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 08:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfqjo+oh7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031002121808.31301.qmail@web41112.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net> wrote: > >
>> 
>> 
> So -- and I'm just brainstorming here -- one thing
> we could do is just
> ask people to commit to *something* or, if they are
> too busy, take a
> sabbatical until they have time to help.  Anyone
> taking a break would
> be welcome back anytime, of course.  (Otherwise, no
> one will ever risk
> taking a sabbatical, and we have to be mindful of
> fundamental fairness
> and all.)  Then we'd have an idea of whether we have
> a group of
> committed individuals and its size, and we could
> bring in a bunch of
> new people who *will* contribute if needed.  Some
> people who serve
> specialized functions could be exempted, of course. 
> Paul, Steve,
> Naama, Porphyria, and there are probably a couple of
> others.
> 
Just to pipe up quickly... my job here has always been
link-checking on finished FAQs. I'm still happy to do
this, as soon as there's something there for me to
check. 

Sheryll, who also noticed nothing odd about the list
because A) she's on individual email and B) she was on holidays

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From jmmears at comcast.net  Thu Oct  2 14:58:36 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 14:58:36 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blfieb+smhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blhees+fjc0@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "abigailnus" <abigailnus at y...> 
wrote:

> I think this a chicken and egg situation.  You probably saw on the 
list that I 
> recently joined up as a list elf, and one of the reasons that I 
chose to accept 
> the task was the silence on this group, which had already been 
going on for 
> two weeks.  It's true that many of the new elves are also members 
of FAQ, but 
> our duties at this point are light, and I don't think that they 
preclude working 
> on FPs.  
> 
> So, let me first give a shout-out to anyone who might be reading 
this message.  
> Are you out there?  Did you even notice that the FAQ list went 
dark for a few 
> hours earlier this week?  Are you still interested in writing 
FPs?  Just respond to 
> this post with a Yes or No.  Please.


::Waving::

I'm here and I'd like to get going on the Weasley family FP.  It's 
just that, well, I don't really know what to do yet and was hoping 
for some direction on how to proceed from more experienced members.  
I've gone through the old FP and it doesn't seem to refer to many 
HPfGU posts/theories so I'm rather confused.  Are the FPs on a 
particular character or group of characters (Weasleys in my case) 
supposed to incorporate *all* the major impressions concerning them 
that have ever been brought up on the lists?  That was what I 
thought they were for, but some of them just seem to be essays by a 
single writer who, though they mention alternate ideas, really are 
just writing their own thoughts on the character(s) based on their 
own reading of the books.

At any rate, there seem to be a variety of takes on the approach to 
FPs and I'm not sure if there even is a *right* way to proceed.  
I'll send an off-list note to Eileen in case she's not reading the 
list at the moment, and see what her ideas are.

Thanks for kick-starting the discussion, Abigail and Cindy, and BTW 
I agree with Debbie on the color scheme eyestrain issue.

Jo Serenadust, geezer







From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Oct  2 19:14:02 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:14:02 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <017301c3888e$396c5380$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>
Message-ID: <blhtdq+pdcv@eGroups.com>

Penny:

> As for the others that I initially authored, I believe Mysteries and
>Govt have both been claimed by other individuals or teams.  Correct?

Pippin and I revised "Mysteries."  I don't wish to have further
responsibility for it.

Penny and I are listed as authors of "HPfGU:  A History."  I don't
wish to have further responsibility for that, either.

Cindy





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Thu Oct  2 20:11:53 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:11:53 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
Message-ID: <bli0q9+7c5o@eGroups.com>


I also apologise for not responding re my continued commitment to 
the Harry FP. I would still like to be involved in it, but I am 
reluctant to commit until I have finished my Quidditch FP. Last time 
I looked at it, I did decide that I actually wouldn't update it to 
include OoP (until next year), and but for a few alterations, I 
imagine it will soon be ready for a proof read. Again, I won't 
commit myself to a deadline on this, as I've already broken several, 
but I will get it done ? and soon. I won't pretend that I've 
constructed a work of artistic merit, but I have pulled together a 
functional document on Quidditch.

Leadership

Speaking with my HR hat on, I'm not sure that a Leader is either 
necessary or would be successful on the FAQ list? this is regardless 
of whether we work in teams a la the House System or complete the 
FPs individually.

The Culture that we have on the FAQ list, is a lose network of 
individuals (a "galaxy structure") who are working to get to a 
common goal ? the completion of FPs. It is not a "power" culture or 
a leadership culture. (From Charles Handy if anyone is interested). 
Given what I believe to be the nature of this group, I'm not sure 
how having a leader would work. It is my feeling that it could even 
be divisive and lead to conflict, something that I'm very anxious to 
avoid.

I personally want to complete the Quidditch FP because it's now 
getting on my nerves. I want to do the Harry FP because Harry 
remains my favourite character, and it feels a travesty ? to me ? 
that we haven't yet got him profiled. I also want to do the FPs 
because I don't want to let down the people of this group or indeed 
HPfGU as a whole.

 I will thus be working to fulfil *my* commitments and *my* sense of 
duty. It is certainly true that a leader could make me feel guilty 
for not doing more, but you've made me feel guilty anyway. If 
someone tried to push me into completing things, I'd be more likely 
to clam up. 

In terms of the Inter-house championship, labelling the FPs as 
Slytherin, Gryffindor etc would never motivate me, as I do not feel 
the need to compete with others to get our FP done. I grew up with 
inter-house competition and to have it here is a reminder of my 
school days, something I left behind years ago. I am fine to carry 
out the Harry FP under whatever banner people might wish, but 
perhaps true to the nature of the Hufflepuff's in the Potterverse I 
do not feel at all competitive about it.

Ali





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Oct  2 23:31:21 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 23:31:21 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <bli0q9+7c5o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blicg9+gv11@eGroups.com>

Ali wrote:

> In terms of the Inter-house championship, labelling the FPs as 
> Slytherin, Gryffindor etc would never motivate me, as I do not feel 
> the need to compete with others to get our FP done. 

I think there may have been some miscommunication about what the House
system is and is not.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is not and was never supposed to be a
competition.  No one will win or lose.  It was not designed to cause
anyone to feel guilty or bad.  It is nothing like my understanding of
a true House Championship (based on what I have seen in canon).

The point of the FP House System was (1) it was kinda cute and fun and
seemed to be a morale booster; (2) it was a prefixing system to allow
groups working together on an FP to discuss their work here rather
than off-list; (3) it allowed others to skip posts that didn't pertain
to their own work if they chose; and (4) it refected a consensus
decision of this group that we would do better to work as teams on a
limited number of FPs that were considered a priority.  

I gotta tell ya, however, that I am bewildered by the persistent
suggestions that this group has functioned without leadership.  Unless
I am hallucinating, I was one of the leaders of this group for quite a
while.  For instance, one thing I did as leader last year was to prod
Neil to locate and upload his Quidditch draft, review it, decide that
it was worth completing, and ask Ali off-list to finish it, which she
graciously agreed to do.  I really didn't think the FAQ list was a
contentious or unpleasant place then, despite the fact that I was
functioning as official (and later de facto) leader.  

Sorry to be so very *prickly* on this issue, but it would be as though
people suddenly started saying that HPfGU never had anyone experienced
in intellectual property.  We clearly did, and it was Heidi -- who did
good work and a lot of it.  It would be rather revisionist to suggest
otherwise.

As I mentioned earlier, we have already strayed pretty far from the
House system we were using.  If we wish to abandon that system (and
just have everyone work on whatever they want whenever they want), we
can do so, of course.  I would say such a step is unwise, but that's
just MHO. 

Cindy




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Fri Oct  3 00:43:24 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:43:24 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
 
 
Message-ID: <blignc+ovb7@eGroups.com>

Debbie wrote:

> I think the next step is for Tom, Derannimer and myself to pick sections to work    
> on. 

And I think you are right.

I want to get started on "DE Roll-call," I think. Tom, if you're doing DE's too I don't 
know if I have to collaborate with you or not. Is it okay by you if I go ahead with "DE 
Roll-call?" I've thought, given some of your posting, that you might want to work on 
some of the more theoretical aspects of the DE topic; is it okay if we wind up working 
on different things, do you think?

The reason I don't ask Debbie is:
 
> Another possibility is that one of us could switch over to updating 
> the government FP (which is quite out of date) while the other two 
> work on the DEs. Since that's what I had originally planned to do, 
> along with the Aurors (when Porphyria and I had this responsibility) 
> and had in fact started on it, perhaps I should keep that side and 
> leave the DEs to Tom and Derannimer. 

Debbie, I think that should be fine; it's fine by me, anyway.
 
> Erm. I agree that the burnt orange is a bit over the top and makes 
> the menu very hard to read for us old folks who need reading 
> glasses. The lighter orange is just a wee bit more readable.

<Derannimer squints critically at it>

I don't know that I'd call that color a "burnt orange" exactly, would you? It looks to me 
more like some remarkably unfortunate color of salmon. In fact, I think that if it were 
paired with a red, it would look more sort of pink.
 


Derannimer, who has also noticed how hard Abigail is working, and who tends to feel 
like a lazy slacker when she sees Abigail's posts. "Oh, no! Abigail's posting again! I 
practically never post! I'm such a fraud!" And who would like to emphasize that this is 
in no way Abigail's fault; Derannimer *is* a lazy slacker.       




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Fri Oct  3 00:44:46 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:44:46 -0000
Subject: OT: The Below Post
Message-ID: <bligpu+60fj@eGroups.com>

How do I *do* this? What is with this darn "no author" thing? That is so *weird!*


Derannimer




From pennylin at swbell.net  Thu Oct  2 23:54:32 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:54:32 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP and Leadership
References: <blicg9+gv11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02bc01c38940$87e4b1d0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

Cindy wrote: <<<<<<I gotta tell ya, however, that I am bewildered by the persistent suggestions that this group has functioned without leadership.  Unless
I am hallucinating, I was one of the leaders of this group for quite a
while.  For instance, one thing I did as leader last year was to prod
Neil to locate and upload his Quidditch draft, review it, decide that
it was worth completing, and ask Ali off-list to finish it, which she
graciously agreed to do.  I really didn't think the FAQ list was a
contentious or unpleasant place then, despite the fact that I was
functioning as official (and later de facto) leader.  

Sorry to be so very *prickly* on this issue, but it would be as though
people suddenly started saying that HPfGU never had anyone experienced
in intellectual property.  We clearly did, and it was Heidi -- who did
good work and a lot of it.  It would be rather revisionist to suggest
otherwise.>>>>>>>>>

Well, this may be just semantics, but I viewed your role as the HPfGU Moderator whose had current province over the FAQ group, rather than the FAQ Group Leader per se.  Prior to the time that the HPfGU Moderators decided to appoint one of their number to sort of "oversee" the FAQ Group, it ran itself without any real leader.  Of course, the group had fallen into quite a bit of inactivity and was in desperate need of new blood when Cindy took over the role of Moderator Rep to the FAQ Group, so I don't mean to suggest that the group was functioning just fine prior to Cindy taking on more of a leadership role.  I suppose I was the leader of sorts of this group for a time, simply by virtue of the fact that I was the sole moderator when this group began its work.  But, I didn't really regard myself as the group leader so very much.  I did try to prod people into completing the tasks they'd committed to, but without much success.  Which, I think, is frankly just the mode of operation here to be honest.    

People feel that this is very much a volunteer, leisure activity, and they resent being "guilted" into working on the FPs (as Ali suggested earlier today).  Or, at least that's my take on it looking back with hindsight and sort of processing my own current feelings.  So, I'd still say that we should not undertake to create a Taskmaster/Leader for the group, as I think the end-result will be more and more people slinking off into the shadows, hiding from the Taskmaster since they just haven't felt like doing any FP work in the past weeks/months/years.  No, I'd prefer that things remain as they are, all things considered, because, well, I just don't think instituting a Taskmaster would have the desired result of more completed FPs and more updated FPs, in a more timely manner.  I think we should just accept that people will do what they will do.    

Penny


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




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct  3 08:46:40 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 08:46:40 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <blicg9+gv11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bljd1g+oiu8@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:-

>>> The point of the FP House System was (1) it was kinda cute and 
fun and seemed to be a morale booster; (2) it was a prefixing system 
to allow groups working together on an FP to discuss their work here 
rather than off-list; (3) it allowed others to skip posts that 
didn't pertain to their own work if they chose; and (4) it refected 
a consensus decision of this group that we would do better to work 
as teams on a limited number of FPs that were considered a priority. 
<<<

Cindy, I do actually agree with you on most of those counts. But, it 
doesn't mean that *I* have to like the use of the House system or 
that for *me* it doesn't conjure up ideas of competition. I have 
never suggested that we should stop it. I also think that my 
feelings about this are probably in a minority, which is fine. But, 
if we are discussing the effectiveness of the system that we 
currently have, then I don't think it was inappropriate to express 
my feelings.

On the subject of leadership, I am very aware and grateful to you 
for the help that you gave me when I joined FAQ. I didn't graciously 
accept to redo the Quidditch FAQ, I felt honoured (and bemused as 
Quidditch wasn't one of my pet subjects). Part of my guilt at not 
finishing it is towards you, and yes, I do feel guilty. 

But, for me the group has changed substantially in the time that I 
have been involved in it. During the last expansion of the group, 
you said that we were without a leader, I can't remember your exact 
expression, but it was something to do with anarchy. I liked the 
philosophy behind that idea.

My understanding of group cultures has led me to think that a leader 
here would have a very up hill task. There have been conflicts both 
here and elsewhere which have affected a number of FAQers. In 
wanting to move on and find out what works best for us now, I'm not 
at all trying to undermine the great work that you have done here. 
But, neither am I trying to forget that things have changed.

For me, rather than work with a leader, the small project-based 
teams within the larger FAQ still has merits. I don't think that 
anyone would have any objections to being asked for timesales and to 
the extent that they can commit to projects here. In terms of 
project leaders, I would submit that Abigail has become the de facto 
facilitator for the Harry FP, which I think is great.

Ali





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct  3 13:52:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 13:52:12 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <bljd1g+oiu8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bljuuc+10c7d@eGroups.com>

Hey,

I forgot to mention something yesterday.  Ali mentioned (if I
understood things correctly) that she might finish the Quidditch FP
based on books 1-4.  

I wonder if we can agree that we won't upload any FPs that do not
address OoP?  I really think that if we upload anything that doesn't
reflect OoP discussion that the reaction from our membership will not
be positive.

On the leadership, I also forgot to mention this:  I don't think
anyone here is willing to lead this group anyway.  So the whole
discussion is likely academic.

Cindy -- snickering at Rush Limbaugh's predicament




From heidit at netbox.com  Fri Oct  3 13:58:50 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 06:58:50 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <bljuuc+10c7d@eGroups.com>
References: <bljuuc+10c7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1065189533.1D6DF659@r5.dngr.org>


On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 9:52AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hey,
>
> I forgot to mention something yesterday.  Ali mentioned (if I
> understood things correctly) that she might finish the Quidditch FP
> based on books 1-4.
>
> I wonder if we can agree that we won't upload any FPs that do not
> address OoP?  I really think that if we upload anything that doesn't
> reflect OoP discussion that the reaction from our membership will not
> be positive.

But we didn't learn anything new about quidditch in book 5 anyway, other 
than details about the playing ability of various students, so out of 
all the topics, that's probably the most reasonable to upload sans new 
information. Of course, if anyuone found a fantastic post since june on 
the topic, I'd agree that it should be included!

Heidi



From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct  3 16:58:44 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:58:44 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <1065189533.1D6DF659@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <blk9s4+rc6l@eGroups.com>


Cindy asked:

>>> I wonder if we can agree that we won't upload any FPs that do not
 address OoP?  I really think that if we upload anything that doesn't
 reflect OoP discussion that the reaction from our membership will 
not be positive.>>>

Ali:

In an ideal world, all the FPs should be updated to include OoP. I'm 
sure that's what our membership would want. However, wouldn't they 
rather have an FP which clearly states what it is includes and the 
expectation that it will be updated rather than no FP at all?

It's still only a few months since OoP was released, and I don't 
feel that I'm wrong in thinking that the OoP section of the 
Quidditch FP would loose out by waiting a few more months for more 
posts on the subject. In a way, we have a bit of a conundrum; the 
FPs are designed to reflect the posts of our membership, There have 
been some Quidditch posts, and if people have message numbers I'll 
happily look at them, but my intention is to concentrate on where 
the bulk of the discussion has been - and that's pre-OoP. I have the 
not unreasonable expectation that quality posts will continue to 
filter in. At that point, the OoP discussion update would include 
these posts.

If this idea is unacceptable to the group, then, I'll finish the FP 
as I'd intended, and we can either then keep it on file until I 
update next year, or somebody else can take it over. 

Ali






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct  3 19:37:39 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:37:39 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <blk9s4+rc6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c389e5$ceb9e030$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
>In an ideal world, all the FPs should be updated to include OoP. I'm 
>sure that's what our membership would want. However, wouldn't they 
>rather have an FP which clearly states what it is includes and the 
>expectation that it will be updated rather than no FP at all?
 
Mmmm, my opinion is that a FAQ writer should include all fantastic posts
and interesting discussion and theories through whatever date the FAQ is
finished, more or less.  Either there have been fantastic OoP-inspired
Quidditch posts or there have not been.  If not, no problem (although
the writer could certainly include a narrative section with wise
observations about the role of Quidditch in OoP).  If there have been
fantastic posts, then it would be easy enough to include them in some
truncated fashion now, I would think.  Thoughts?
 
When Pippin and I did the Mysteries FP update, we picked a certain end
point (which was pretty much the day we got started).  I think the
cut-off point was post 50,000.  We wrote, and then I think I added in
any truly dynamite, stand-out posts I was aware had been posted
recently.  And that was that, and will be until someone updates it.
 
In a way, I have found FAQ writing to be like a giant hamster wheel.  As
soon as you think you're finished, some new post or theory pops up.  ;-)
Indeed, we gave serious consideration to not uploading the most dated
FPs (Weasley Family and Pettigrew) at all because they were so dated
that it was difficult to justify calling them "new" - I think Pettigrew
may have only covered posts 1-4000.  We got around the problem as best
we could by calling them "classic" FPs.  I'm not sure we could get away
with that again, myself.
 
Anyway, to answer the question of whether members would rather have an
FP that goes as far as it goes rather than nothing . . . who knows?  I
suppose MEG could poll the main list if they like.  But my guess is that
anyone opening a brand new FP of a character or subject that appeared in
OoP and seeing that it does not cover OoP will figure that we are just a
bit daft for failing to include discussion of the most recent canon,
*if* there has been any such discussion.
 
Anyway, that's how I look at things, but I'm not writing the Quidditch
FAQ.  :-D  Your mileage may vary.
 
Cindy


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




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Sat Oct  4 01:35:31 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 01:35:31 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <000701c389e5$ceb9e030$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bll853+mb90@eGroups.com>

I think the Quidditch FP should be uploaded whenever it is ready.

Cindy disagreed, :-(  saying:

Either there have been fantastic OoP-inspired
> Quidditch posts or there have not been.  

Yahoomort's search function is not cooperating tonight, but my sense 
is that there has been little in the way of Quidditch discussions 
since OOP came out and that most Quidditch references are incidental 
to the topic at hand.  Perhaps a short discussion here and there on 
who will replace Angelina as captain, whether Harry will return and 
Ginny will in fact switch to chaser.  A search for post-OOP posts 
with Quidditch in the title should clear this up quickly, I think.  
IIRC, none have been identified in the database here.

When Pippin and I did the Mysteries FP update, we picked a certain end
> point (which was pretty much the day we got started).  I think the
> cut-off point was post 50,000.  We wrote, and then I think I added 
in
> any truly dynamite, stand-out posts I was aware had been posted
> recently.  

I think this is basically what Ali proposes to do with the Quidditch 
FP.

> Indeed, we gave serious consideration to not uploading the most 
dated
> FPs (Weasley Family and Pettigrew) at all because they were so dated
> that it was difficult to justify calling them "new" - I think 
Pettigrew
> may have only covered posts 1-4000.  We got around the problem as 
best
> we could by calling them "classic" FPs.  I'm not sure we could get 
away
> with that again, myself.

My recollection at the time was that they were already dated when 
they were posted and that as a listmember I would have found the 
Weasley FP to be a huge disappointment.

The fact that you've proposed to update the Pettigrew FP -- a 
character who did not even appear in OOP -- undermines the theory 
that the Quidditch FP should not be uploaded because it doesn't 
address OOP.  Unlike the Pettigrew or Weasley FPs, though, there 
probably hasn't been much new said about Quidditch since Ali's cutoff 
date.  
>  
> Anyway, to answer the question of whether members would rather have 
an
> FP that goes as far as it goes rather than nothing . . . who 
knows?  I
> suppose MEG could poll the main list if they like.  But my guess is 
that
> anyone opening a brand new FP of a character or subject that 
appeared in
> OoP and seeing that it does not cover OoP will figure that we are 
just a
> bit daft for failing to include discussion of the most recent canon,
> *if* there has been any such discussion.

FPs will always run a bit behind the latest theories.  It's better, I 
think, to have something out there, especially on a topic like 
Quidditch that isn't exactly brimming with new theories.

Debbie




From editor at texas.net  Sat Oct  4 01:58:20 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 20:58:20 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP and Leadership
References: <bljuuc+10c7d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002001c38a1b$dd9845c0$935aaacf@texas.net>

> Cindy -- snickering at Rush Limbaugh's predicament

Don't start.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Oct  4 01:54:30 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 21:54:30 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <bll853+mb90@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c38a1a$73777fe0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Howdy,
 
Debbie:
 
>The fact that you've proposed to update the Pettigrew FP -- a 
>character who did not even appear in OOP -- undermines the theory 
>that the Quidditch FP should not be uploaded because it doesn't 
>address OOP.  
 
Well . . . 
 
I'm not saying we shouldn't upload an FP unless it addresses OoP.
 
I'm saying that *if* there has been OoP-related discussion about an FP
subject, then the FP should reflect that OoP-related discussion. 
 
The only way to know if there has been such discussion is to check.  I
would certainly check for Pettigrew-related discussion since release
date, even though he does not appear in OoP.  I just doubt there would
be any.  See?
 
Again, FAQ authors can do whatever they want whenever they want, it
appears, and I am only giving my humble opinion.  
 
Cindy 


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




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sat Oct  4 09:43:50 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 09:43:50 -0000
Subject: Harry FP and Leadership
In-Reply-To: <bli0q9+7c5o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blm4om+39h0@eGroups.com>

So, no sooner am I lauded for being such a hard worker then I disappear 
into the ether <g>.  Sorry, but yesterday and Thursday were extremely 
hectic, and unfortunately, the next few days will be as well.  Tomorrow is 
Yom Kippur, and I'm not certain if I'm going to be online (we never turn 
on the TV, but whether or not we use the computer is always a last minute 
decision.)  Plus, I'm going to all light-headed from fasting and probably 
won't have much that's meaningful to say.

Penny asked that I repost the Harry FP outline I wrote back in June:

1. Harry's character, development and relationships
 1.1 Harry as an abused child, including the theory that the 
 entire series is his protective halucination, or that the 
 series will end up being a dream.
 1.2 The differing views on Harry's personality - is he a 
 take-charge hero or an arrogant kid? How justified is 
 Harry's incessant rule-breaking?
 1.3 Harry's inability/unwillingness to ask for help
 1.4 Harry's relationships with adults 
 1.5 Harry's relationships with his contemporaries. The Rift 
 in GoF, and maybe Harry's treatment of Neville.
 1.6 Harry's reactions to fame.
 1.7 Harry failing 
 
2. Harry's purpose, abilities and destiny
 2.1 Why did Harry survive? Straight up love protection, 
 Love as a Spell Component and Ancient Magic.
 2.2 Is Harry special, and how? Stoned!Harry, Trelawney's 
 First Prediction and Heir of Gryffindor.
 2.3 Harry's abilities - is Harry simply a talented wizard, 
 or a preternaturally powerful one?
 2.4 Was the Philosopher's Stone ordeal rigged?
 2.5 Will Harry die? Will defeating Voldemort cost him his 
 magical powers? Will he be forced to leave the 
 wizarding world?

I had the following thoughts regarding this outline in view of OOP:

>>Looking at this outline from a post-OOP standpoint, there 
 are some obvious necessary changes. Almost all of section 
 1 needs to address the changes in Harry's personality in OOP 
 and how those changes affect his future. In particular, section 
 1.2, Harry's personality, needs to include discussions on Harry's 
 development, and on what his behavior in OOP tells us about 
 him. Is he a normal boy going through adolescence? Are his 
 outbursts normal for the amount of pressure he's under? Is he 
 suffering from mental problems such as depression or PTSD (this 
 one might belong in section 1.1)?
 
 Section 1.3 remains mostly unchanged, although I think a 
 discussion of Harry's reactions to Umbridge might belong here 
 - why doesn't he speak out against her punishment and what 
 does that tell us about him? For that matter, an important 
 theme in OOP is self-control, and Harry's lack thereof - that 
 might also belong here or in 1.2.
 
 Section 1.4 will have to be expanded. I'm thinking that 
 sub-sections will be necessary at least for Snape, Dumbledore 
 and Sirius, and possibly Hagrid. I really think that the theory 
 that these men and others are Harry's father-figures belongs 
 here, and there has to be some discussion about how Harry is 
 consistently failed by adults in OOP. I also think that 
 generational parallels - with James, Sirius and Snape - should be 
 discussed in this section.
 
 In section 1.5, there should obviously be some discussion 
 of how Harry treats his friends and contemporaries in OOP. I 
 said in my original message that Shipping was already 
 well-covered by other FPs and shouldn't be discussed here, 
 but I think Harry's relationship with Cho tells us a lot about 
 him and about his growth, and should probably be addressed 
 here. I also think that in view of the prophecy it's important to 
 include a discussion of Harry and Neville as mirror images of 
 each other.
 
 I suggested section 1.7 because the main group had recently 
 discussed at length whether or not Harry would fail in his fight 
 against Voldemort. In OOP, he did just so - does this make this 
 section superfluous or should it remain?
 
 Section 2 should probably remain largely unchanged, with the 
 exception of section 2.2. Harry is obviously special, and 
 Trelawney's first prediction has panned out. However, I've seen 
 posts on the main group that continue to defend both 
 Stoned!Harry and Heir of Gryffindor, so they should probably 
 remain. However, this section will obviously have to include 
 discussions of the prophecy. Similarly, section 2.5 will also have 
 to be updated in light of the prophecy. In fact, I'm wondering if a 
 section devoted to the prophecy might not be in order.>>

As far as leadership is concerned.  Cindy rightly pointed out that no-one 
is going to undertake to be a leader, so the discussion is purely academic.  
In addition, my recent work as a list elf has got me thinking about the 
differences between the type of work done on the two groups.  Mod (or 
whatever it is that it's being called these days) has a lot more work to do 
then FAQ, but it is highly dispersed, broken up into tiny pieces, and relatively 
quickly dispatched.  Our work, on the other hand, will ultimately be mostly 
singular, and will take a lot more time.  This, I suspect, is why it's harder to 
motivate FP writers then list elves.  It's also why I think a leader might not be 
as effective as we might like.  Bottom line, no one can make us or order us to 
do anything.  We're all here of our own volition, and what we accomplish is up 
to us.

Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Oct  4 14:03:58 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:03:58 -0000
Subject: Rush and Arnold (WAS Harry FP and Leadership)
In-Reply-To: <002001c38a1b$dd9845c0$935aaacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <blmk0e+e1pv@eGroups.com>

I wrote:

> Cindy -- snickering at Rush Limbaugh's predicament

Amanda wrote:
 
> Don't start.
 

<innocent look>

Start *what?*

<less innocent look>

Seriously, I've been following Rush's problems with great interest.
I'm not snickering, really.  In fact, you'll be surprised to hear that
there is a small, almost microscopic place in my heart that causes me
to feel sorry for him.  Just a little.

First, losing your dream job after a month cannot be fun.  

Second, if you view the video clip, what he said didn't sound *that*
bad at first in real time.  (That's why none of the on-air talent
reacted at the time, I suspect.)  But when he saw the transcript and
refused to recant or clarify, well . . . there's no excuse for that.

The clip is here:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html

Third, losing one's hearing as an adult (or any time, really) cannot
be an easy thing to cope with.

Fourth, he must be a very sad and lonely man to be abusing powerful
painkillers like that (*if* he did).  Is it true that abusing Oxytocin
causes deafness?

Boy.  Between AllHands!Arnold and Rush, there's a lot of scandal to
keep track of these days!

Cindy -- who would have no idea what to do if Arnold ever grabbed her
bare breast




From editor at texas.net  Sat Oct  4 16:35:59 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 11:35:59 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Rush and Arnold (WAS Harry FP and Leadership)
References: <blmk0e+e1pv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c38a95$98b58920$ee5aaacf@texas.net>


> Cindy wrote:
>
> > Cindy -- snickering at Rush Limbaugh's predicament
>
> Amanda wrote:
>
> > Don't start.
>
> <innocent look>
>
> Start *what?*

A series of tossoff one-liners, which could escalate into a pointless OT
discussion when I don't care to let my silence imply consent anymore. This
is what happened with the election thing on the main list, too.

> Seriously, I've been following Rush's problems with great interest.
> I'm not snickering, really.  In fact, you'll be surprised to hear that
> there is a small, almost microscopic place in my heart that causes me
> to feel sorry for him.  Just a little.
>
> First, losing your dream job after a month cannot be fun.

He resigned. It was his choice. I personally don't think he should have, but
the reasons he gave were good.

> Second, if you view the video clip, what he said didn't sound *that*
> bad at first in real time.  (That's why none of the on-air talent
> reacted at the time, I suspect.)  But when he saw the transcript and
> refused to recant or clarify, well . . . there's no excuse for that.

I don't think there's a damned thing wrong with what he said, on first
hearing or subsequent reading, and I think, as always, people take any
opportunity to discredit him because he is such a powerful voice.

> Third, losing one's hearing as an adult (or any time, really) cannot
> be an easy thing to cope with.

The cochlear implant works, but it can't be the same. I think he's dealing
well with that.

> Fourth, he must be a very sad and lonely man to be abusing powerful
> painkillers like that (*if* he did).  Is it true that abusing Oxytocin
> causes deafness?

For the record--his deafness is caused by a genetic condition. And I don't
believe he abuses powerful painkillers, weak painkillers, or any sort of
drug that affects mental processes, because it would have shown up in the
quality of his show.

> Cindy -- who would have no idea what to do if Arnold ever grabbed her
> bare breast

I'd probably be seeing a doctor--the man has strong hands. I doubt it took
those women 20-30 years to recover enough to hobble to the nearest media
outlet, though. How cheesy.

~Amanda


~Amanda

>
>
>       Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>             ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sat Oct  4 17:15:35 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:15:35 -0000
Subject: Rush and Arnold (WAS Harry FP and Leadership)
In-Reply-To: <001601c38a95$98b58920$ee5aaacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <blmv7n+stlu@eGroups.com>

<Captain Racism, tireless defender of the rights of people of color to
be treated fairly once in a while, dons her black cape and clingy
spandex tights that show off her voluptuous Junk In The Trunk to
maximum advantage.  She politely declines her sidekick's offer of
SPF50 sunscreen and launches herself out the window, soaring
effortlessly over to HPfGU, where an interesting comment needs to be
addressed>

Amanda:

>This is what happened with the election thing on the main list, too.

Fear not!  According to "[Insert New Title Here]," HPfGU has been
liberated and there are no more banned topics!  We can discuss
politics if we want, so long as we behave ourselves.

> He resigned. It was his choice. 

Yes, true.  It was kind of ESPN to allow him to resign rather than be
ousted and escorted from the building.  And he was smart to leave of
his own accord, because his statement was indefensible.

> I don't think there's a damned thing wrong with what he said, on
>first hearing or subsequent reading, and I think, as always, people
>take any opportunity to discredit him because he is such a powerful
>voice.

For those who haven't been following this little drama, Rush Limbaugh
is a conservative political talk show host.  His dream was to be a
sports commentator, and lucky for him, he won a spot doing football
commentary on ESPN.  He had been on the job for one month.  On the day
in question, the four on-air commentators where discussing whether a
particular starting quarterback (Donavan McNabb, who is black) was
good and whether he was in a slump.  Limbaugh said the following:

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

"I don't think he's been that good from the get-go. I think what we've
had here is a little social concern in the NFL. I think the media has
been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. They're
interested in black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. I think
there's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit
for the performance of his team that he really didn't deserve. The
defense carried this team."

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

Hmmm.  Maybe Limbaugh is onto something here.  Just yesterday,
Asian-American Figure Skater Michelle Kwan came in second in the
Campbell's Skating Competition to rival Sasha Cohen.  If you think
about it, though, it is clear that the media has been very desirous
that Asian figure skaters do well.  They've been propping her up, what
with all the *hope* they've invested in her.  

Yep, Rush had a good point.  ;-D

Cindy -- idly wondering whether ESPN only hired Limbaugh to fill some
disabled person quota because he's deaf  :-D




From editor at texas.net  Sat Oct  4 21:27:37 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 16:27:37 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Rush and Arnold (WAS Harry FP and Leadership)
References: <blmv7n+stlu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c38abe$5609ad80$a958aacf@texas.net>

Cindy, I mean it. Get the hell off the soapbox. You won't give and neither
will I, and it's clear we won't agree, so let's just drop the subject, okay?

~Amandageist





From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sun Oct  5 00:04:30 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:04:30 -0000
Subject: Take it Outside (was: Rush and Arnold)
In-Reply-To: <000c01c38abe$5609ad80$a958aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <blnn6e+dln6@eGroups.com>

OK, neutral corners, both of you.

Seriously, Cindy, Amanda, if you guys want to continue discussing this matter, you're 
more then welcome to do so in private e-mail, tomorrow's chat, or OTC (where I see 
the discussion has already started).  This list is for writing FAQs.

Abigail




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Sun Oct  5 02:43:50 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 02:43:50 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <bl1bu5+av7h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blo0h6+c5p0@eGroups.com>

Abigail wrote:

> On another matter, should I come to any conclusions with regards to 
> the silence on the Harry FP front?  Before OOP, there were four 
> people other then myself who had signed up to this group - Penny, 
> Ali, Dicey and Phyllis.  Are they no longer interested in this FP?  

I am still interested (especially in the Heir of Gryffindor section), 
but need to go back to a point Amanda raised awhile back which is: 
for FAQ newbies (such as myself), can one of the oldbies please walk 
us through how to write a FAQ?  I can get a general idea of style and 
format from reading the existing FAQs, but I'm confused about where 
to find the fantastic post examples.  Are we supposed to comb through 
the enchilada to find appropriate posts?  That prospect seems rather 
daunting, IMO.

~Phyllis




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Oct  5 02:41:59 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2003 22:41:59 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Take it Outside (was: Rush and Arnold)
In-Reply-To: <blnn6e+dln6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000c01c38aea$4027db00$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hey,  
 
Look folks.  We've had OT discussion many times on this list.  We've had
all manner of silliness and teasing and what not.  I always thought it
enhanced our sense of community, myself.  We had political discussions
many times on MEG as well, up to and including a lengthy discussion of
the Middle East situation, in which everyone behaved themselves.  I see
no problem with some (or even lots) chit chat here, if folks behave
themselves.  I didn't wish to be rude (and I don't think I was rude) or
make anyone uncomfortable, and I'm sorry if my posts were inappropriate.
I thought the reference to my *ample backside* was enough to take the
edge off, but I guess not.  
 
Sorry.  I'll take my sense of humor somewhere else next time.
 
Cindy 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: abigailnus [mailto:abigailnus at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 8:05 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Take it Outside (was: Rush and Arnold)
 
OK, neutral corners, both of you.

Seriously, Cindy, Amanda, if you guys want to continue discussing this
matter, you're 
more then welcome to do so in private e-mail, tomorrow's chat, or OTC
(where I see 
the discussion has already started).  This list is for writing FAQs.

Abigail





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1784493/R=0/id=noscript/SIG=11q7p9e7k/*http:/webevents.yahoo
.com/universal/intolerablecruelty/> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=256694.4002236.5216697.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1784493/rand=887059866> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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




From jmmears at comcast.net  Sun Oct  5 03:21:44 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 03:21:44 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blo0h6+c5p0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blo2o8+ts55@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Phyllis" <erisedstraeh2002 at y...> 
wrote:
 

> I am still interested (especially in the Heir of Gryffindor 
section), 
> but need to go back to a point Amanda raised awhile back which is: 
> for FAQ newbies (such as myself), can one of the oldbies please 
walk 
> us through how to write a FAQ?  I can get a general idea of style 
and 
> format from reading the existing FAQs, but I'm confused about 
where 
> to find the fantastic post examples.  Are we supposed to comb 
through 
> the enchilada to find appropriate posts?  That prospect seems 
rather 
> daunting, IMO.


I'm seconding Phyllis' request. I've read the existing FAQs and 
different writers have taken different approaches.  A general "walk 
through" would be really useful for me and would make it much easier 
to get started.

Jo S.




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Sun Oct  5 18:45:23 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 18:45:23 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blo2o8+ts55@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blpos3+fe72@eGroups.com>

Phyllis wrote:
> > I am still interested (especially in the Heir of Gryffindor 
> section), 
> > but need to go back to a point Amanda raised awhile back which is: 
> > for FAQ newbies (such as myself), can one of the oldbies please 
> walk 
> > us through how to write a FAQ? 

And Jo concurred.  I'm hardly qualified to offer an opinion, but how about 
this:

1. Create an outline for the FP, with specific topics to be covered.
2. For each topic, go through the list of cataloguing topic terms and find a 
few (maybe half a dozen) that best describe discussions about the topic.
3. Search for messages with those topic terms in the Whole Enchilada (I'm 
not entirely certain how to do this)
4. Identify the best messages from the relevant ones
5. Use those messages to compose the section of the FP.  Here the question 
of the FP's format becomes important.  Some essays merely pose questions 
and immediately link to message numbers, whereas other offer a short 
discussion of the topic.

Abigail
Talking about things she knows not




From elfundeb at comcast.net  Mon Oct  6 09:47:51 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 09:47:51 -0000
Subject: How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again
In-Reply-To: <blpos3+fe72@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blrdo7+p8m4@eGroups.com>

[Snip Abigail's excellent instructions for writing FPs]

> 3. Search for messages with those topic terms in the Whole 
Enchilada (I'm 
> not entirely certain how to do this)

Good question!  I asked this one once, too, and Dicey's response is 
here

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/message/1690

It really wasn't that hard to do.  I then printed the relevant 
entries (you can use the Print Area function to highlight the entries 
you want to print, and then to shrink it so all the columns will fit 
on one page).

Unfortunately, for those of you doing the Harry FP, there are a *lot* 
of entries, so I think Abigail is right that you need to use some of 
the other topic terms to narrow down your search to posts that are 
likely to address the topic you're looking for.

I would also add that we need to check the Fantastic Posts database 
here to pick up any post-OOP posts that address the topic you're 
interested in.  And, finally, since the Enchilada covers only through 
last September or so, if you recall any fantastic posts or threads 
since that date but before OOP it would be good to search the 
archives for those as well.

Debbie




From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk  Tue Oct  7 01:23:29 2003
From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:23:29 -0000
Subject: FWD from HPfGU owner: Ambitious editorial idea for for HPfGU Admin Team..
Message-ID: <blt4ih+oc2v@eGroups.com>

This was sent to the admin Team at the owner address. After reading 
it, it seems more in FAQ's remit, so I'm forwarding it here.

Carolyn's email is CarolynWhite2 at aol.com

Hi
I have only been a member since about July this year, so apologies 
first of all for the temerity in sending in a radical restructuring 
suggestion for the site! 

However, foolishly emboldened by Amanda Geist's recent encouragement 
to Kneasy (82268), I thought I would send you some ideas I have been 
thinking about for a while now, which may fit in with what he is 
suggesting, or indeed, what you may be working on already.

It seems to me that the basic problem with the site at the moment is 
that there are too many messages for people to search easily. This 
leads to many of the repetitions and silly questions that people 
object to. This problem is exacerbated by bad headings and Yahoo's 
peculiar threading function.

Although there are resources, such as Fantastic Posts, and the 
Lexicon to help, nevertheless people do have difficulty in finding 
out what has been discussed before.

My suggestions for sorting this out are first and foremost, aimed at 
the website, to improve its usability right now. However, they could 
also be the basis of an interesting publication eventually (more 
below on this).

1. First, form a working group of about 100 keen HPfGU members.

2. Then, allocate a set of posts to each of these people. At the 
time of writing, there are approaching 83000 posts, so this would 
mean 830 posts per person - a fairly manageable number, 
as many are quite short. Each group probably no more text than GoF 
or OoP if laid end to end !

3. Next, decide on an initial list of possible headings. Everyone is 
familiar with the posts - it should not be difficult to anticipate 
what subjects are likely to be discussed. Fantastic Posts already 
has some useful headings, but it needs a lot of expansion to cope 
with all the extraordinary stuff that comes up. Filks need parking 
somewhere as well.

4. The next stage is for each member to go through their 830 posts 
and correct the headings, using the agreed subject list, so that 
they properly reflect the content that they find. There will need to 
be a stop-and-pause process to discuss new heads that inevitably 
come up during this stage.

5. If posts address multiple subjects serially, and can be easily 
split apart under different headings, then this should be done at 
this stage. Where posts address several topics, but in a more 
integrated way, probably the best thing is to copy the post as many 
times as required for the different headings.

6. Once fixed, all the posts then need to be sorted into groups as 
per the headings, and (very importantly) put in date order.

7. The piles of posts then need allocating to different people to 
work on - probably a smaller group than the original 100-strong 
working party, or maybe not if there are more than 100 topics (could 
easily be, I suppose).

8. Then, for each topic, once it is in date order, the editor needs 
to go through and slice out any repetitive text, where it is not 
essential to understanding a reply. This will enable someone to read 
post 1, then all the replies, expansions, queries etc that this post 
generates in their correct order. 

Text only needs repeating where someone chooses to reply paragraph-
by-paragraph to something. 

This exercise in itself will considerably shorten the total amount 
of text on each subject.

9. It is important that posts are not cut out altogether, however 
silly they are, as the whole purpose is to preserve the flow of the 
debate. Also, it will take too long and be too difficult to make 
decisions in many areas. (You can just hear the heated 
discussion: 'sorry, I just don't agree that Snape is anything other 
than a model teacher, so I cut out all this nonsense about bats and 
vampires'
.or.. 
'I'm a practising Christian, I don't think this sort of thing should 
be debated at all
)!

10. The process of doing this cutting and ordering will undoubtedly 
reveal repeated waves of the same question being asked on some 
popular topics. I think this should be left as it is, and possibly 
even labelled 'wave 1' 'wave 2' etc, to highlight when the argument 
starts all over again! The reason I suggest this is that, although 
the initial question might sound similar the 3rd, 10th, even 20th 
time, in fact what tends to happen is that new shades of answers 
come back from new minds on the problem, or as a result of new 
information (especially post-OoP publication). In the case of named 
theories, it would definitely do no harm at all to show how the 
ideas have evolved over time 
 (this is where Kneasy's idea fits in 
I think)

11. Probably the editor working on one topic should finally swap 
with another editor when finished, so there is a second eye on the 
decisions that have been made, and bias does not creep into 
contentious areas 


12. These tidied, cleaned, shortened and ordered sets of posts 
should then be put up on the site as per their subject headings, so 
that people can quickly and easily find them and read themselves up 
to date on any given subject, from the original posts.

Although it sounds like a lot of work, I don't believe the whole 
process would really take more than a couple of months if it was 
well-organised, and it would contribute so much to finding out what 
had gone before.

By the way, I am not suggesting deleting the main list, that should 
stay as it is, as a primary resource, as with all the other 
documentation - although the new files might be a radical 
replacement of the current Fantastic Posts section.

Obviously, there then needs to be put in place an ongoing update 
process, so new posts can regularly be added, to keep a subject up 
to date. 

That's Part 1 of my suggestion (don't groan, Part 2 is much shorter).

If this process is carried out, and kept up to date, you then have 
the basis of a fantastic book, to be pulled together at some 
suitable point after the end of Book 7. My initial concept of this 
was as a tribute volume to be presented to JKR, as a thank you for 
giving us so much pleasure over the years. However, I think a lot of 
HPfGU members would also like a copy (I know I would !), so 
perhaps it could be published on a purely charitable basis, all 
surplus to go to good causes after printing costs had been met.

For this book version, there would need to be more editorial 
intervention - probably to choose the best posts, or best series of 
posts on the various topics, rather than include everything. 
However, it should definitely still preserve the original text of 
the posts, and not become a smoothed over and 
edited summary - half the amusement is following the various listies 
as they lock antlers (I noticed Iggy McSnurd encountered Golly last 
week
). I can also think of a least a couple of posts which 
would make great headings in themselves. There was the listie who 
asked plaintively 'what is this canon, I would like to read it', and 
another who asked indignantly 'what is this Tbay stuff ?'? A 
perfectly reasonable question, of course
..

Another issue is copyright and attribution - as a publisher myself, 
I know these are big issues (I don't publish in this area at all, I 
hasten to add - my area is business and management!). The 
simple solution as far as the actual posts go is to attempt to ask 
each and every person their permission to use their post in this 
way. If they have disappeared, it may be ok to publish the posts 
anonymously. 

As far as the material quoted within the posts from the HP books, 
and many other sources, I guess you'd need to talk firstly to JKR 
about this, to see if she'd allow this (rather extensive use). If 
there were problems, you could get round it by just giving the book 
and page refs to long passages. For other quoted material, the same 
goes - give correct attribution, contact copyright owner in cases of 
doubt.

But it would make a highly unusual publication - a documentation of 
a publishing phenomenon.
 
People just wouldn't believe the topics which have come up as a 
result of these books !

Well, I hope you'll give the ideas some consideration.

Cheers
Carolyn









From s_ings at yahoo.com  Tue Oct  7 01:26:41 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:26:41 -0000
Subject: Pending member
Message-ID: <blt4oh+3af6@eGroups.com>

I notice that Maria is sitting patiently in the "Pending Member" 
section. Shall we invite her aboard?

Sheryll




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Tue Oct  7 09:17:05 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:17:05 -0000
Subject: Carolyn & Maria
In-Reply-To: <blt4ih+oc2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blu0ah+e7u1@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "bluesqueak" <pipdowns at e...> wrote:
> This was sent to the admin Team at the owner address. After reading 
> it, it seems more in FAQ's remit, so I'm forwarding it here.

<snip Carolyn's message>

I did a Yahoomort search on her (her handle is a_reader2003 in case anyone 
else is interested).  Her style is good, and if she's this interested so early on 
then she may be a valuable asset.  My only problem is that she's been a member 
for less then three months.  Now, obviously this would disqualify her from being 
a list elf, but is it that important in an FP writer?

I was thinking of writing her something like this:

Carolyn,

You know you should always be careful about making suggestions to 
management, right?  You'll end up carrying them out yourself.  

I'm writing on behalf of the HPfGU FAQ team.  We're in charge of writing the 
essays on the Fantastic Posts website.  Your message regarding a possible 
cataloguing of HPfGU's posts was forwarded to us by the list admins, as 
someone who might like to join us.  We have in fact already implemented 
something similar to what you suggested - a cataloguing of some 30,000 
messages according to topic terms.  We use that catalogue to identify posts 
which are later used in FP essays.  We were wondering if you'd like to join us 
in writing these essays, a task that has become doubly important following 
the release of OOP.

If this sounds like something you might enjoy doing, send me a reply and I'll 
send you an invite.

Abigail

Yeah, it needs work.  Any suggestions?

Regarding Maria, she's been a member for quite some time, and also writes well.  
I'm not sure exactly how she got to us or why she wants to join.  Does anyone 
want me to ask her, or should I just approve her membership?

Abigail




From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Oct  7 12:28:08 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 07:28:08 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Carolyn & Maria
References: <blu0ah+e7u1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <017501c38cce$77ebce80$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

Abigail, your letter to Carolyn actually looks fine to me as is!  :--)

RE: Maria ------ I'm just going to repeat the question I asked about Michelle.  Is *she* still interested?  Do we need to have a discussion about how members are recruited and how we as a group should decide to approve new members?  I wouldn't want a repeat situation where Maria joined us, only to be removed summarily by one of us with Mod powers on this group.  

FWIW, I don't know Maria, but I again have no objections to anyone who wants to join us from signing on.  Willingness to work goes a long way in my book.  :--)

Also, I will try to write up a summary of the procedure I used in writing FPs for those who asked for some guidance, though my writing FPs predates the "Whole Enchilada."  I'll try to use the whole enchilada a bit and then see how I might change what I did earlier.  

I also know that I owe the Hufflepuff team some preliminary thoughts on what part(s) of the Harry FP I'm willing to tackle.  I'll get to that soon I promise.

Penny

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




From pennylin at swbell.net  Tue Oct  7 13:33:34 2003
From: pennylin at swbell.net (pennylin)
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 08:33:34 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Carolyn & Maria
References: <000a01c38cd3$88fd0fe0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <019801c38cd7$9c3f5780$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>

Hi --

<<<<<I am opposed to inviting Michelle to this group, whether she is
interested or not.  I have stated my reasons, and since then, additional
information has come to my attention that I am not at liberty to
disclose in this setting.  For the good of the group, I hope you will
respect my opinion on this point.>>>>>>>

Actually, no.  I'm afraid that's not quite good enough.  I don't any one member of this group should have ultimate veto power over whether new members are asked to join the group or not.  

So......Amanda, Sheryll ----- is Michelle still interested?  Would you like to state why you believe that she *should* be invited to the group?  Then, we can have a vote, and majority rules IMHO.  

I asked: <<<>Do we need to have a discussion about how members are recruited and how
we as a group should decide to >approve new members?  I wouldn't want a
repeat situation where Maria joined us, only to be removed >summarily by
one of us with Mod powers on this group.>>>>>  

Cindy responded: 

<<<<<Neither would I, Penny.  No, we do not need that discussion.  I think we have agreed none of us will take unilateral action and invite folks to this group without consulting this group.  If unilateral invitations do not go out, then no one will be put in the position of restoring the status quo so the group can decide *as a group.*>>>>>>>

So, are there prior messages about this Maria that I've missed then?  Yahoomort perhaps?  All I've seen is a notation that she is pending.  Did someone nominate her and make a case for her candidacy?

Frankly, I don't think anything was ever really decided about this whole nomination and invitation process.  I think it's a good idea for there to be a "No Unilateral Action" policy that applies, of course, to *both* invitations and removals of members.    

<<<There are a number of people who have asked to join us, and not one has
received a response (so far as I know).  Rather than focus on Michelle
so very much, perhaps we should get back to these poor folks?  As far as
Carolyn and Maria go, I'll go with whatever the group decides.>>>>>>

Who are these people?

Penny  




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




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Tue Oct  7 15:29:25 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:29:25 -0000
Subject: Michelle's candidacy  was Re: Carolyn & Maria
In-Reply-To: <blui14+d61n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <blum4l+88j1@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:-

>>>> Thankfully, God is truly merciful and heaven has blessed us 
such that this question is *totally* academic now.  I suspect no one 
on this list will make the mistake of firing off an unauthorized 
invitation to  this list again.  I see no reason to dredge all of 
this up, myself, and I think it will just lead to more fireworks on 
this list.>>>  

I agree that nobody wants to dredge up old wounds, but it isn't 
totally academic. Michelle is a real person with real feelings. The 
situation isn't concluded as I don't think that we ever really 
discussed Michelle's candidacy.

In the past, "candidacy" wasn't really an issue, but circumstances 
surrounding Michelle made it an issue. That is not *her* fault.

I do think it relevant here to ask Michelle whether she still wants 
to join the group, and what she thinks *she* can contribute. I don't 
think this approach need to be applied to anyone else, but 
Michelle's situation is unique. Wherever the blame lies, we owe it 
to Michelle to fully conclude it.

I believe that it is worthwhile asking what Michelle can contribute. 
I think she would be the first to admit that she has had problems 
contributing as an elf. She has cerebral palsay, and partial 
sightedness which she is overcoming every time she communicates 
here. Pendings etc were hard for her because of the need to 
differentiate chevrons etc. But, I don't see why that would stop her 
from making a positive achievement on the FAQ list. Here, it is 
creativity that is required, is it not? Perhaps she only wants to 
help out with cataloguing, but I cannot think her joining would 
cause any harm.

This whole issue might be moot, because Michelle could be so upset 
by her treatment that she nolonger wants to join anyway.

Ali





From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  8 13:04:13 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:04:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Carolyn & Maria
In-Reply-To: <019801c38cd7$9c3f5780$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01>
Message-ID: <20031008130413.66220.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- pennylin <pennylin at swbell.net> wrote: > Hi --
> 
> <<<<<I am opposed to inviting Michelle to this
> group, whether she is
> interested or not.  I have stated my reasons, and
> since then, additional
> information has come to my attention that I am not
> at liberty to
> disclose in this setting.  For the good of the
> group, I hope you will
> respect my opinion on this point.>>>>>>>
> 
> Actually, no.  I'm afraid that's not quite good
> enough.  I don't any one member of this group should
> have ultimate veto power over whether new members
> are asked to join the group or not.  
> 
> So......Amanda, Sheryll ----- is Michelle still
> interested?  Would you like to state why you believe
> that she *should* be invited to the group?  Then, we
> can have a vote, and majority rules IMHO.  
> 
I believe Michelle is currently having internet
problems, at least that's the indication I get from
her LiveJournal. Will contact her at the soonest
opportunity and ask if she's interested. Will also ask
her what she had in mind to do on this list. 

> I asked: <<<>Do we need to have a discussion about
> how members are recruited and how
> we as a group should decide to >approve new members?
>  I wouldn't want a
> repeat situation where Maria joined us, only to be
> removed >summarily by
> one of us with Mod powers on this group.>>>>>  
> 
> Cindy responded: 
> 
> <<<<<Neither would I, Penny.  No, we do not need
> that discussion.  I think we have agreed none of us
> will take unilateral action and invite folks to this
> group without consulting this group.  If unilateral
> invitations do not go out, then no one will be put
> in the position of restoring the status quo so the
> group can decide *as a group.*>>>>>>>
> 
> So, are there prior messages about this Maria that
> I've missed then?  Yahoomort perhaps?  All I've seen
> is a notation that she is pending.  Did someone
> nominate her and make a case for her candidacy?
> 
> Frankly, I don't think anything was ever really
> decided about this whole nomination and invitation
> process.  I think it's a good idea for there to be a
> "No Unilateral Action" policy that applies, of
> course, to *both* invitations and removals of
> members.    
> 
No, I don't recall any decisions being made as to
procedure, either. Certainly we agreed that unilateral
actions was a bad idea. :)

> <<<There are a number of people who have asked to
> join us, and not one has
> received a response (so far as I know).  Rather than
> focus on Michelle
> so very much, perhaps we should get back to these
> poor folks?  As far as
> Carolyn and Maria go, I'll go with whatever the
> group decides.>>>>>>
> 
> Who are these people?
> 
I'd like to know as well, as I've heard no indication
here about anyone asking to join this group. If people
have put their names forward, why hasn't this group
been made aware of it?

Sheryll

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Oct  8 13:19:05 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Carolyn & Maria
In-Reply-To: <blui14+d61n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031008131905.70304.qmail@web41107.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net> wrote: >
Hey,
> 
> Penny:
> 
> > Actually, no.  I'm afraid that's not quite good
> enough.  I don't any
> >one member of this group should have ultimate veto
> power over whether
> >new members are asked to join the group or not.  
> 
> <sigh>
> 
> I don't know if one person has veto power or not
> (and for the record,
> my post wasn't a "veto;" it was a *plea*).  
> 
> But let's review.  If one person has veto power,
> then that is
> consistent with a governing structure of
> "consensus," as a group
> operating under the rules of consensus is powerless
> to override a veto
> (also called a "block").
> 
> If we must vote, then that is consistent with a
> governing structure of
> "democracy."  Majority rules.
> 
> If a group of leaders will decide, then that is
> consistent with a
> governing structure of "benign dictatorship."
> 
> And if anyone can do whatever they want whenever
> they want, then that
> is consistent with a governing structure of
> "anarchy."
> 
> We have no governing structure, we seem to have
> concluded that we
> don't need one, so  . . . . I dunno.
> 
Don't want to go into this again. We can talk
ourselves in circles on this one. I really don't
understand why you are so intent on putting how we do
things into a specific category, Cindy.
>  
> > So......Amanda, Sheryll ----- is Michelle still
> interested?  Would
> >you like to state why you believe that she *should*
> be invited to the
> >group?  Then, we can have a vote, and majority
> rules IMHO.  
> 
> FWIW, I heard nothing from Michelle about my letter
> to her.  I would
> have no objection if folks would like to make the
> case on her behalf,
> although I think it would be *really* keen if
> Michelle wrote to us
> directly.
> 
Am really not surprised you heard nothing from
Michelle. Summarily tossing her out likely hurt her
feelings a great deal. As I stated in my last email,
she's been having internet troubles lately and
apparently can't access email.
>  
> > So, are there prior messages about this Maria that
> I've missed then?
>  >Yahoomort perhaps?  All I've seen is a notation
> that she is pending.
>  >Did someone nominate her and make a case for her
> candidacy?
> 
> 
> I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, Penny, but I
> was referring to a
> few people who have asked to join us over the last
> months and not
> received responses.  
> 
> Let me explain.  When I was leading the FAQ list, I
> kept track of any
> such inquiries (and other administrative "To-Do"
> items) and made sure
> we dealt with them (or dealt with them myself if
> that was
> appropriate).  I no longer keep such a list, and the
> only way I could
> compile one now would be to go back and comb the FAQ
> archives.
> 
> Perhaps someone should do that to make sure we
> didn't miss anyone or
> any other administrative issues?  We'd probably
> better review the
> archives through March, just to be safe, as I can't
> be certain that I
> didn't miss something due to the upheaval this
> spring.
> 
>  
> > Frankly, I don't think anything was ever really
> decided about this
> >whole nomination and invitation process.  I think
> it's a good idea
> >for there to be a "No Unilateral Action" policy
> that applies, of
> >course, to *both* invitations and removals of
> members.    
> 
> I think we have such a policy, although I can't
> agree that if one
> member violates the "No Invitations" rule that no
> one can restore the
> status quo.
> 
> Thankfully, God is truly merciful and heaven has
> blessed us such that
> this question is *totally* academic now.  I suspect
> no one on this
> list will make the mistake of firing off an
> unauthorized invitation to
> this list again.  I see no reason to dredge all of
> this up, myself,
> and I think it will just lead to more fireworks on
> this list.  
> 
Since no one has offered to comb the archives, I'll do
it. It might take me a couple days, but I'll look
through them and see whose names have come up as
interested in joining the team. 

Sheryll

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From dicentra at xmission.com  Thu Oct  9 02:35:54 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra at xmission.com)
Date: Wed,  8 Oct 2003 20:35:54 -0600
Subject: New Magical Spreadsheet
Message-ID: <1065666954.3f84c98aba254@webmail.xmission.com>

I've just uploaded a new version of the Magical Spreadsheet to the Files
sections of both -FAQ and -mod.  This version has all e-mail addresses
truncated. (The second spreadsheet, now added to the first, had full e-mail
addresses, if you'll remember.)

I did it using judicious search and replace, not by exporting the list
headers from a non-moderator account.  (I have no idea how Paul does it.) 
So don't be overly impressed by my technical prowess.

Now that the e-mail addresses have been truncated, the spreadsheet is safe
for public consumption, IMO.  Right?

--Dicey



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Oct  9 18:15:36 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:15:36 -0000
Subject: Welcome, Maria!
Message-ID: <bm48k8+6gbq@eGroups.com>

Looks like we have a new member!  <waves to Maria>

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Thu Oct  9 20:36:21 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 20:36:21 -0000
Subject: Welcome, Maria!
In-Reply-To: <bm48k8+6gbq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm4gs5+lnse@eGroups.com>

> Looks like we have a new member!  <waves to Maria>
> 
> Cindy

Welcome!....and we had to do it, you have to do it, let's see the 
bio... (we have a list of questions someplace, somebody's bound to 
remember where...)

~Amanda






From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct 10 10:06:57 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali Hewison)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:06:57 +0100
Subject: FW: Requesting membership
Message-ID: <000001c38f16$3d4dfec0$bc536b51@pewter>

Sent to the owners address.

I would just like to officially nominate Kelley. She works incredibly
hard, diligently completes tasks, and is very interested in helping out
with the project suggested by Carolyn.

I believe that she will be a great asset to the team.

Ali

-----Original Message-----
From: Kelley Thompson [mailto:kelleythompson at gbronline.com] 
Sent: 10 October 2003 09:57
To: HP4GU-FAQ-owner at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Requesting membership


Hello FAQ team--

I'd like to request membership in this group.  There is at least one
project I would very much like to help with, possibly others as well. 
Please let me know if there are any objections to my membership here. 
I've also asked on MEG as well.


Best, 

Kelley






From heidit at netbox.com  Fri Oct 10 12:20:56 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 05:20:56 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: FW: Requesting membership
In-Reply-To: <bm66gm+l6sj@eGroups.com>
References: <bm66gm+l6sj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1065788460.15FCB98B@r5.dngr.org>

I just wanted to register my objections to scrubbing the archives. I 
fear that in deleting any mention of any possible faq-list-member runs 
the risk of losing archival material that is part of this group's (to 
quote alan rickman's excellent film Galaxy quest) "historical 
documents."

I'm just not sure it's necessary.

Heidi


On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 7:51AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hi, all,
>
> Here's my view on Kelley.
>
> Kelley was part of the group of six Mods who ousted me.  She did a few
> other things during that time that I considered highly inappropriate.
>
> Nevertheless, I approached Kelley this spring, and we had a dialogue.
>  Let's just say that no apologies were exchanged, but I think it was
> productive because certain misunderstandings were addressed.  We
> basically decided to drop it and move on.  FWIW, during that period, I
> had contacted all of the six Mods (except John and Parker), and the
> effort was successful on some level only with Neil and Kelley.
>
> Consequently, I have no objection to having Kelley join us, as she is
> able to conduct herself in a professional manner despite her
> involvement in Modgate.  I think she'd do just fine, and I don't think
> that her arrival will increase the unfortunate tension in our group.
>
> BTW, can I request that before anyone sends out invitations to this
> group that they announce their intention to do so so that the archives
> can be scrubbed?
>
> Cindy -- knowing this message will make no sense to Maria, but hoping
> Maria will ask a FAQ member to explain things off-list
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 10 14:29:51 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 14:29:51 -0000
Subject: FW: Requesting membership
In-Reply-To: <20031010124236.75262.qmail@web41105.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bm6fov+dbuc@eGroups.com>

Good morning!

Sheryll:

> I honestly fail to see how your dealing with former
> HPFGU Mods is relevant to anyone's ability to function
> as part of the FAQ team. And I really resent the
> frequency with which you bring up "Modgate".

Oh, that's easy.

Modgate happened.  Everyone on MEG and FAQ knows about it.  Some
people are still consumed by anger and bitterness over it, and some
people are not.  Rather than have anyone wring their hands wondering
if Kelley's arrival will result in daily smackdowns, I thought I'd
make clear that it will not. 

As far as bringing up Modgate here, well . . .  I wish Modgate hadn't
happened.  It did.  That's just a fact.  So when I think Modgate is
relevant to something that comes up, I'll discuss it.  Anyone who is
troubled by this can respond or ignore or whatever.

> I suspect the "unfortunate tension" on this group is
> increased more by your constant referral to past MEG
> happenings than it would be by the arrival of Kelley.

I respect your point of view, although I can't agree with it, I'm afraid.

> I highly object to the scrubbing of archives. 

OK.  Heidi objects as well, I see.

I'll just control what little I can control, then.  I will delete my
own messages offering comment on candidates to this group.  Others can
do the same and delete their own messages, if they choose.  In the
future, I won't comment on this list at all on new members; I will
instead send a 39-way e-mail off-list.

I know that some FAQers have written posts that have quoted my
comments about Kelley and Michelle and others.  I would appreciate it
if those posts were deleted as well, but I'll leave that decision to
the authors of those posts.

Sheryll:

>I tried
> to search and find where there was any discussion of
> this by the list members and came up empty. Is this an
> agreed upon procedure? If so, agreed upon by whom and
> can the issue be revisited as I know I'm not the only
> FAQ member who objects to scrubbing the archives.

The decision to scrub the archives here has its root in MEG policy of
the time.  I scrubbed the archives when I ran the group.  Perhaps I
should have been more open about my practices (I certainly could have
posted a "Hey, I'll be deleting from the archives any embarrassing
mentions of the batch of new members!"), but it just never came up. 
Fortunately, few of our membership decisions in the past were
controversial.

On the merits, the purpose of scrubbing the archives is simply to
avoid having newcomers read comments about *themselves.*  It is a
matter of protecting their feelings.  (The MEGs here will recall that
a particular MEG arrived there to find concern about her elf candidacy
because of her poor grammar and spelling, which the Mods inadvertently
failed to delete before she arrived.  This caused her considerable
embarrassment, and she said so later on MEG in support of the idea of
scrubbing the archives).

Recently, Amanda indicated that MEG has reversed this policy and no
longer scrubs its archives before new members arrived.  I won't
comment on the wisdom of that decision, but I think their issues are
considerably different than ours.  There is merit in the idea that all
of the Modgate discussion and conflict on MEG should remain for new
members to read so they know what their colleagues know about those
hideous events.  

That isn't the situation here, so I think our policy should be to
delete anything in the archives that might embarass a new member.  We
needn't delete things that might embarrass an *existing* FAQ member
(or someone like Darrin who was not invited), IMHO.  That's why I
didn't delete my own message announcing my ouster as a Mod (despite
receiving a sweet off-list from Eloise nudging me to do so).  That
message only has the potential to embarrass *me* (although it
doesn't), so there's no reason why newcomers shouldn't read it, IMHO.

That said, if you guys aren't troubled by the idea of have
enthusiastic and wide-eyed newcomers here stumble across frank
discussion about them, well . . . just let me know before you hit the
"invite" button so I can govern myself accordingly.

Cindy




From heidit at netbox.com  Fri Oct 10 14:36:06 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 07:36:06 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: FW: Requesting membership
In-Reply-To: <bm6fov+dbuc@eGroups.com>
References: <bm6fov+dbuc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1065796568.30A0493@w5.dngr.org>


On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:29AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
>>  I highly object to the scrubbing of archives.
>
> OK.  Heidi objects as well, I see.
>
> I'll just control what little I can control, then.  I will delete my
> own messages offering comment on candidates to this group.  Others can
> do the same and delete their own messages, if they choose.  In the
> future, I won't comment on this list at all on new members; I will
> instead send a 39-way e-mail off-list.

I want to make it clear that my objection was just that. An objection. 
It was not intended to be an attempt to blackball said scrubbing, and I 
don't think, Cindy, that you should decide for the group that scrubbing 
should not happen. Why shouldn't this be something discussed and 
deliberated?

And if you plan to continue deleting posts where you discuss potential 
newbie-faqers, then you certainly should feel free to post to the list 
and then delete your post before the invitation is made, instead of 
sending offlists. Why not just post to the list and include a request 
that nobody quote you on the list when discussing the Potential? I know 
I'd respect such a request.

Heidi



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 10 15:06:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:06:12 -0000
Subject: FW: Requesting membership (re-formatted)
In-Reply-To: <000601c38f3d$aaec8470$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bm6ht5+h72v@eGroups.com>

Crap!

I'm still getting the hang of posting via e-mail instead of web view,
and the formatting on my last message was awful.  Plus, I forgot to
attribute the quote to which I was responding.  Here's a cleaned-up
re-post; I'll delete the other one from the archives.

Cindy

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

Howdy!

Heidi:
  
> I want to make it clear that my objection was just that. An
>objection.  It was not intended to be an attempt to blackball said
>scrubbing, and I don't think, Cindy, that you should decide for the
>group that scrubbing should not happen. Why shouldn't this be
>something discussed and deliberated?

I haven't decided that scrubbing shouldn't happen.  I haven't decided
that scrubbing should happen.  We're discussing it right now.  

We did, however, have an invitation go out yesterday without having
the archives reviewed or scrubbed (so far as I know, anyway).  We have
no meeting of the minds on the issue (yet).  So all I can do right now
is deal with my own messages that I wrote believing that they would be
deleted before invitations were sent out.  

  
What you saw there was an attempt by me to be deferential.  See, the
current vote is Sheryll, Heidi and Amanda with reservations about
scrubbing and only Cindy in favor of scrubbing.  Everyone else has
been silent so far.  I apologize if I was unclear and appeared to be
speaking out of turn.  I didn't mean to.
  

Heidi:

>And if you plan to continue deleting posts where you discuss
>potential newbie-faqers, then you certainly should feel free to post
>to the list and then delete your post before the invitation is made,
>instead of sending offlists. Why not just post to the list and
>include a request that nobody quote you on the list when discussing
>the Potential? I know I'd respect such a request.

  
Sure.  We could handle it that way.  I just was worried that my
saying, "Everybody has to delete a post in which they quote me" would
lead to comments suggesting I was being controlling or something.  I
didn't feel I could demand that others delete their posts if they
quote me, given the sentiments of those who have spoken so far.  I'm
quite willing to go with whatever the group decides and, as I said,
govern myself accordingly.
 
Cindy




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Fri Oct 10 15:51:21 2003
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 15:51:21 -0000
Subject: Scrubbing (was Requesting membership)
In-Reply-To: <bm6ht5+h72v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm6khp+kkuo@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:

> See, the
> current vote is Sheryll, Heidi and Amanda with reservations about
> scrubbing and only Cindy in favor of scrubbing.  Everyone else has
> been silent so far.  

I abstain.

My personal solution to this conundrum is, when commenting on 
possible admissions to a group, to bear in mind that the people I am 
commenting on may end up reading what I say.  The same goes, for 
example, when commenting on main list behaviour by newbies.  E-mail 
is remarkable durable, as Bill Gates found out to his cost, and even 
*with* a scrubbing policy there is no guarantee that copies won't 
eventually find their way to the subject of discussions.  

I tend to think that, if my concerns are legitimate and 
diplomatically expressed, the person won't mind.

David




From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 10 16:40:10 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:40:10 -0000
Subject: Scrubbing (was Requesting membership)
In-Reply-To: <bm6khp+kkuo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm6nda+mab4@eGroups.com>

FYI: A discussion on the legality of list scrubbing has opened on 
MEG, which may render this particular "vote" moot. I suggest we hold 
off on discussing this for the here and now.

As for Kelley, I did a search on "Kelley" and there's not just a lot 
there anyway. I'd say bring her on. And is Carolyn under 
consideration, is she on? I only saw a welcome to Maria.

~Amanda, rushing off in an attempt to do *some* paid work today

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> 
wrote:
> Cindy wrote:
> 
> > See, the
> > current vote is Sheryll, Heidi and Amanda with reservations about
> > scrubbing and only Cindy in favor of scrubbing.  Everyone else has
> > been silent so far.  
> 
> I abstain.
> 
> My personal solution to this conundrum is, when commenting on 
> possible admissions to a group, to bear in mind that the people I 
am 
> commenting on may end up reading what I say.  The same goes, for 
> example, when commenting on main list behaviour by newbies.  E-mail 
> is remarkable durable, as Bill Gates found out to his cost, and 
even 
> *with* a scrubbing policy there is no guarantee that copies won't 
> eventually find their way to the subject of discussions.  
> 
> I tend to think that, if my concerns are legitimate and 
> diplomatically expressed, the person won't mind.
> 
> David




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 10 17:18:57 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Scrubbing (was Requesting membership)
In-Reply-To: <bm6khp+kkuo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031010171857.12760.qmail@web14305.mail.yahoo.com>


--- davewitley <dfrankiswork at netscape.net> wrote:
> Cindy wrote:
> 
> > See, the
> > current vote is Sheryll, Heidi and Amanda with
> reservations about
> > scrubbing and only Cindy in favor of scrubbing. 
> Everyone else has
> > been silent so far.  
> 

Hmm.

Well, I've been thinking about this matter, and I'm
kind of conflicted.

See, when I came onto this group I didn't know that
there *was* any tension, and it was very distressing
to think that everything was going along fine and then
suddenly have these weird eruptions of not-fine-ness
and then finally have to be filled in by someone
off-list. And, before being filled in, not have a clue
about what had gone on, who would look at me weirdly
if I was friends with whom, whether or not people were
lying to me, etc. It was extremely upsetting to me to
be left in the dark. And I tend to think that it would
be upsetting to other people to find things out the
same way that I did.

To those who may say that no one need ever find out
about the recent unpleasantnesses: Come off it. Sure
they will. As Cindy said, it happened; it's
regrettable that it did, of course, but as it has,
it's foolish to pretend it didn't and expect it will
somehow never affect anything again. So the new
FAQ-er's most probably *will* find out, one way or
another, and I think that, if it was me, I'd rather
find out up-front.

So, for that reason, I'm inclined against scrubbing.

On the other hand.

Cindy raises an excellent point about the possibilty
that new members may have been discussed on this list
in the past. That would have embarrassed the [bleep]
out of me. [1] 

So that makes me wonder if maybe we might want to
scrub the archives after all. 

(If we do, btw, I'm guessing that this post would be a
favorite.)

Bottom line: I don't really know. If we're just doing
it to protect newbies from the knowledge of the
group's inner politics, I would advise against
scrubbing, because everyone's just going to find out
anyway, and I *really* do think that it would be
better for them to find out up front. But if we're
doing it to prevent them from reading frank
assessments of themselves. . . yeah. That could really
be pretty humiliating. It would make them
self-conscious, if nothing else.

Obviously, I've never been on this side of the
newbie-invite thing before, so I don't really know
squat, and everyone can just disregard all of this if
they want to -- but I just thought I should throw a
few thoughts out there.




Derannimer, who apologizes to Maria for this email,
which must be rather cryptic, if not down-right
*sinister,* and would just like to tell her that if
she wants an explanation she can contact. . . drat,
I'm talking about myself in the third person, aren't
I? Pronoun Conflicts! Well, scratch that particular
device. Look, if you're baffled, drop me a line, and
I'll give you the Cliff Notes version. It's not as bad
as it probably sounds.

-----

[1] As a side note: It, er, never occured to me that
we relative newbies might have been discussed here,
although it makes sense, of course. I now find myself
wondering what, well, um, not to sound too conceited
or anything -- what *did* people say about me? 

"No! Not Derannimer! She's the most self-indulgent
TBAY-er I've ever seen! And she puts too many
qualifiers in her writing! 'Really' must account for
17% of her word count!"

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 10 17:22:59 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:22:59 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Scrubbing (was Requesting membership)
In-Reply-To: <bm6nda+mab4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c38f53$27531640$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
Amanda:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>
FYI: A discussion on the legality of list scrubbing has opened on 
MEG, which may render this particular "vote" moot. I suggest we hold 
off on discussing this for the here and now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Um . . . .  The "legality" of list scrubbing?
 
I'm confused.  MEG is deciding what the FAQ list will do about scrubbing
the *FAQ* list archives?  Or did you mean MEG is deciding about its own
archives?  <puzzled look>
 
Shouldn't the FAQ list decide its own internal policies on something
like that?
 
Cindy
 


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




From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 10 17:39:38 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:39:38 -0000
Subject: Scrubbing (was Requesting membership)
In-Reply-To: <001601c38f53$27531640$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bm6qsq+e5li@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> Um . . . .  The "legality" of list scrubbing?
>  
> I'm confused.  MEG is deciding what the FAQ list will do about 
scrubbing
> the *FAQ* list archives?  Or did you mean MEG is deciding about its 
own
> archives?  <puzzled look>
>  
> Shouldn't the FAQ list decide its own internal policies on something
> like that?

It's not list-specific. It has to do with interpreting Yahoo Terms, 
and as such is relevant to FAQ or any other Yahoo list. And it's on 
MEG because MEG is the admin list for the HP4GU "family." What comes 
of the discussion is likely to be relevant to the options we consider-
-so I just thought we might want to wait. Especially since scrubbing 
the files for Kelley is moot.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 10 17:45:32 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:45:32 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Scrubbing (was Requesting membership)
In-Reply-To: <20031010171857.12760.qmail@web14305.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <001b01c38f56$4dd99390$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi, again,
 
Derannimer wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
[1] As a side note: It, er, never occured to me that
we relative newbies might have been discussed here,
although it makes sense, of course. I now find myself
wondering what, well, um, not to sound too conceited
or anything -- what *did* people say about me? 


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Hee!  You guys are *cute* when you're paranoid!  
 
The answer is that I tossed out your names as candidates (I know I
included Darrin in the first list), and no one said anything (people
were still in ModGate shock, I think).  Then someone (Elkins, Ali?),
listed some additional names, and I added those to the list.  Those
messages are all there in the archives, I think.  I left them because I
didn't think any of you would be embarrassed to see how you came to
receive your invitations.  (FWIW, I remember once that when a group of
Elves arrived on MEG, we had failed to scrub messages discussing a
howler to be sent to one of the incoming Elves.  The invitations had
already gone out, and the person had accepted it already!  I immediately
found another Mod who was around, and together we managed to delete
those old messages that instant, hopefully before the new Elf searched
that far back in the archives.  I can only hope we were fast enough,
because reading how very much I earned a howler as a new member would
have embarrassed me tremendously.)
 
I don't know if I deleted any messages when this latest group came in,
although I remember stewing about one message for a while.  I can't
remember what the trouble was with it or even who it pertained to.  I
deleted *nothing* to avoid having folks learn about Modgate or anything
else like that, and as I said, I don't think we should scrub for *that*
particular reason.
 
You all may recall that Melody posted a light-hearted message to this
list after she arrived.  She noticed that I had written a message that
implied she was an afterthought  ("Oh, yeah.  And Melody.").  She
wasn't, of course.  I knew Mel well enough to know she would likely not
be offended, and I knew she knew (or suspected she knew) that I like her
so much personally that I'd never slam her.  So I left my message,
figuring it could stay.  
 
I admit, however, to a sharp intake of breath when Melody teased me
about that message later, and a few sweaty moments of second-guessing
myself.  :-D
 
Cindy - who has since toweled off
 


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




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 10 22:44:36 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:44:36 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
Message-ID: <bm7cok+pqir@eGroups.com>

Boy oh boy! Every time I stop paying attention for a little while 
there's an avalanche of posts. Is it me?

Some of you may have noticed that I've been assiduously staying out 
of these types of discussions since I got smacked down for 
suggesting that we govern ourselves independently of the MEG list.

The reason I'm chiming in now is because I'm kind of disappointed 
that we're all behaving this way, and getting nowhere fast in the 
process. So, I'm going to bring up a few different subjects that 
have reared their heads over the past few weeks; in short, I'm going 
to pull a `Catlady.' ;-) 


MEMBERSHIP:
I have absolutely no problems with extending membership to Carolyn, 
Michelle, Maria, or Kelley (or anyone else, for that matter); if 
they want to participate and lend a hand, then I'm all for it. I 
also believe that all names should be run by the other members 
before they're extended a formal invitation. There should never, 
ever, be a case where someone feels automatically entitled to invite 
someone to the group. 

We don't want government? Fine. Then we work by *majority*. That's 
the only fair way to go.

After reviewing the posts on the subject, I can't find the one where 
we decided to invite Maria at all... who put her in the `Pending 
Member' category in the first place? An archive search hasn't 
brought me any additional information. (To Maria: I already said 
that I'm for your membership. What I'm doing here is trying to 
discuss the procedural-type stuff. Welcome to the wonderfully 
semantic world of FAQ-dom!) We don't seem to have come to any sort 
of consensus on the matter. Granted, I didn't find any objections, 
but I was pretty surprised to log in the other day and find 
the "Greetings" message there waiting for me.

Guys, I don't know how things were done in the past. I don't know 
how MEG operates. But I do know that playing the Ostrich Game and 
hiding our heads in the sand is getting us nowhere, and how! By NOT 
addressing these issues, we're setting ourselves up for more 
problems later on... over a month ago we were discussing all of this 
stuff. We ignored it then, and now it's back. Let's just deal with 
the specifics, as unpleasant as they may be, and then move forward. 
This circular style of debating is just driving me bonkers.

So, I have a suggestion: if someone wants to propose a name for 
consideration, or if someone wants to propose *themselves* for 
consideration, then the issue gets brought up to the list. We then 
institute some kind of standard interim period (like, a week or two) 
to give all of our members enough time to check the list and see 
what the current events are. (Or else, we make all considerations 
for new membership "Urgent Messages" or "Special Notices" or 
whatever. Or else, we make a poll.) 

Anyways, however we handle that internally, we then let the 
candidate know that there will be a certain waiting period ? that 
way, s/he won't think that we're giving him/her the runaround. This 
way everyone, from us to the new person, will be in the know.

SCRUBBING:
I'm in favor of it, on the basis of hurt feelings and hurt feelings 
alone. But I don't want to find out that we've lost information that 
was important to the group when we scrub the archives. 

So, I have a solution: let's use a prefix. MEMB = discussion of new 
members and membership issues. Anything not related to this subject 
should not be included in a post with this prefix. This way, we can 
discuss possible new members, and when we make a decision we can go 
back and remove the MEMB prefixed posts. Done and done. No hurt 
feelings, no lost information.

MODGATE:
As Cindy and Derannimer have pointed out, we all know that Modgate 
happened. It happened before I was even invited to the FAQ team, and 
it happened in another group entirely. I have no problems with 
anyone mentioning Modgate, although I'll be frank and admit that I'm 
disgusted that the whole thing occurred on a list that's ostensibly 
for Grown-Ups. A better case of Grown-Ups acting like teenagers I 
haven't found in my life as of late. In fact, telling my real-life 
friends about the melodrama on our online community has elicited 
more than a few chuckles, I can tell you.

That said, what I *do* have problems with is when Modgate issues 
infiltrate this list. You don't like Cindy mentioning Modgate? Tell 
her ? and do it OFF LIST. As far as I can see, the problems and 
conflicts that we seem to be experiencing aren't derived from the 
mention of the incident, since everyone knows about it. Rather, they 
are the direct result of others' annoyance over the mention in the 
first place. This annoyance then spills onto our list, and the rest 
of us have to deal with the bickering until Abigail comes along and 
plays referee by sending the antagonists to their respective 
corners. ;-)

I think that we need to start using off-list communication a lot 
more. As far as *I* can see, this list should be for discussion of 
policies and FAQ's. It should not be for ad hominem attacks and the 
voicing of discontent with (and about) other members. This is not to 
say, of course, that I'm opposed to light-hearted humorous 
references or pointless banter. I'm opposed to the banter when it 
becomes hurtful and critical of our members. 

Why don't we try something? If you're upset with something that 
someone said, and if that something is NOT a policy-type thing, then 
drop the offender an e-mail, and leave the rest of us out of it.

So, that's it from me. Now, to work on my SLYTHERIN stuff


-Tom





From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 10 23:07:11 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:07:11 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7cok+pqir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm7e2v+777s@eGroups.com>

Tom Wall:

> So, I have a solution: let's use a prefix. MEMB = discussion of new 
> members and membership issues. Anything not related to this subject 
> should not be included in a post with this prefix. This way, we can 
> discuss possible new members, and when we make a decision we can go 
> back and remove the MEMB prefixed posts. Done and done. No hurt 
> feelings, no lost information.

*blinks*
Ingenious. May I lift this suggestion and forward to MEG?

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 10 23:19:41 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:19:41 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7e2v+777s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm7eqd+racc@eGroups.com>

Hi,

Tom:

> > So, I have a solution: let's use a prefix. MEMB = discussion of new 
> > members and membership issues. Anything not related to this subject 
> > should not be included in a post with this prefix. This way, we can 
> > discuss possible new members, and when we make a decision we can go 
> > back and remove the MEMB prefixed posts. Done and done. No hurt 
> > feelings, no lost information.


I think this is a fine idea.  It doesn't, unfortunately, help us in
deciding what to do about *past* posts.  So we're back to square one
on those, I'm thinking.  

Cindy -- who reviewed the Yahoo TOS and can't for the life of her
figure out what the "legalities" are that might prohibit moderators
from deleting posts from the archives of a Yahoo group, which means
the answer must be painfully and embarrassingly obvious for a lawyer
to have missed




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 10 23:29:14 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:29:14 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7cok+pqir@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm7fca+psei@eGroups.com>

Crap!  Forgot to combine.  Sorry, folks.

> We don't want government? Fine. Then we work by *majority*. That's 
> the only fair way to go.

Hey, don't I get a vote?  ;-)

<soft chuckle>

 
>Granted, I didn't find any objections, 
> but I was pretty surprised to log in the other day and find 
> the "Greetings" message there waiting for me.


Man.  How complicated can things get?  More complicated. 

See, some of us have Mod privileges, and some of us do not.  Yahoo
seems to have changed the way its groups work, so there is a limit on
the number of moderators, and we are over it.  (Does anyone know what
that limit *is?*  Just curious.)

Why am I wasting your time with this?  Well, those with Mod privileges
can go and see who has taken what action (by checking the "Management"
window, whereas those of you without privileges cannot.  There's no
reason to keep you in the dark, so I'll just clarify that Morgan
approved Maria's request to subscribe to this list.

If I understand the chronology correctly, Tom, I *think* what happened
is that Maria went to the home page and requested an invitation and
Morgan approved it after we discussed it to some extent here.  FWIW.

Cindy -- glad to see Tom back




From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 10 23:57:31 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:57:31 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7fca+psei@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm7h1b+l9kh@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> See, some of us have Mod privileges, and some of us do not.  Yahoo
> seems to have changed the way its groups work, so there is a limit 
on
> the number of moderators, and we are over it.  (Does anyone know 
what
> that limit *is?*  Just curious.)

I believe it is 15, for all lists, regardless of size. Other MEGs, is 
that correct?

~Amanda






From dicentra at xmission.com  Sat Oct 11 00:51:27 2003
From: dicentra at xmission.com (Dicentra spectabilis)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 00:51:27 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7h1b+l9kh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm7k6f+3guj@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Amanda" <editor at t...> wrote:

> Cindy:
> Yahoo seems to have changed the way its groups work, so there is a 
> limit on the number of moderators, and we are over it.  (Does anyone 
> know what that limit *is?*)

> 
> I believe it is 15, for all lists, regardless of size. Other MEGs, is 
> that correct?


I believe so, although if you already have more than 15, you can keep
them (as is the case on other HPfGU lists).  However, if you delete
one of those, you lose the slot if more than 15 mods remain.

Kelly asked Yahoo if they could make an exception for a 10,000+ member
group such as HPfGU-main and was given an emphatic NO.  So that's the
end of that.

--Dicey




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Oct 11 18:39:12 2003
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:39:12 -0000
Subject: MEMB prefix was Re: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7eqd+racc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bm9iog+ohil@eGroups.com>

Cindy said:

> I think this is a fine idea.  It doesn't, unfortunately, help us in
> deciding what to do about *past* posts.  So we're back to 
square one on those, I'm thinking.  
> 

I came up with the same idea as Tom and sent it to MEG before 
reading his post here. Great minds, eh?

I suggested we leave the prefixed posts in the list archive and 
adopt an honor system. No snooping, no leaking. That way, 
those who didn't take part in a discussion could avoid those 
posts, while those who did would still have access.

Old messages  that would qualify for  the prefix  could be 
scrubbed, archived  elsewhere and consulted on a need to know 
basis.  

The following is from Groups Messages Help under Moderator 
Questions:

"You can delete messages that are off topic, offensive, or 
otherwise objectionable."

So it seems that scrubbing is okay, though I'd still like to hear 
from Heidi.


Thoughts?

Pippin
delurking





From editor at texas.net  Sun Oct 12 19:04:40 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 19:04:40 -0000
Subject: Back to the question...
Message-ID: <bmc8k8+eotm@eGroups.com>

So..

what about Kelley and that other person, Carolyn? We kind of got lost 
in the "scrubbing" discussion, but considering that we don't need to 
scrub for either of these people, because there's nothing of concern 
there about either one, can we move on their membership?

~Amanda




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Oct 12 21:03:02 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:03:02 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bm7k6f+3guj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bmcfi6+9n9j@eGroups.com>

Howdy!

Dicey (on limitation to 15 Mods):
 
> I believe so, although if you already have more than 15, you can
>keep them (as is the case on other HPfGU lists).  However, if you
>delete one of those, you lose the slot if more than 15 mods remain.

Hmmm.  It seems a shame that new members of this group can't have Mod
privileges unless someone is willing to surrender them.  It really
does make a difference -- those without Mod privileges won't receive
messages sent to the FAQ list owner, they can't see the e-mail
addresses of other members, they can't change the colors or perform
any other moderator functions (approve memberships, etc.)

Maybe we can solve this problem by setting up one Yahoo Account that
does have Mod privileges for this list.  All of the FAQ members who
don't have their own Mod privileges could have the password and could
sign in as a Mod whenever they need to do something, er . . . Mod-ish.
 This would require someone to surrender their own Mod privileges, though.

Now, on to this question of scrubbing . . . 

One thing I noticed when I was running this group last year is that
administrative issues can easily swallow you whole.  They just keep
coming at you, one after another, and before you know it, you're all
bogged down.  Now that all of us are working together in some loose
form of governance, we run the risk of being repeatedly derailed by
discussions of administrative issues.

A proposal, then. 

How about if this group decides to review its archives before new
members arrive and to delete anything that might embarrass a new
member, as we have done in the past?  If MEG comes up with some
compelling reason to handle things differently, they can tell us and
we can reconsider our decision, of course.  This proposal will avoid
delay in bringing in new members, it will avoid spending any more time
and effort on the issue, and it will side-step all of those sticky
autonomy issues as well!  Ever So Awesome!

How about if no one objects to this proposal in the next few days,
we'll consider that to be our group consensus decision?  Or, if we
prefer to go with majority rule on this one, I guess we could draft
and run a poll.

Cindy  




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Sun Oct 12 21:09:37 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:09:37 -0000
Subject: Back to the question... (MEMB)
In-Reply-To: <bmc8k8+eotm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bmcfuh+cr69@eGroups.com>

Amanda wrote:

> what about Kelley and that other person, Carolyn? We kind of got lost 
> in the "scrubbing" discussion, but considering that we don't need to 
> scrub for either of these people, because there's nothing of concern 
> there about either one, can we move on their membership?

I went back and checked, and we *did* need to scrub for Kelley.  I
went ahead and deleted my own recent message discussing her request to
join, but there is a message from Sheryll that quotes my Kelley
message at length.  

Sheryll, would you please delete that message?  I could do it, but I
thought it best to ask your permission to delete the post.

Cindy




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Sun Oct 12 21:17:59 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 17:17:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Back to the question... (MEMB)
In-Reply-To: <bmcfuh+cr69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031012211759.49835.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net> wrote: >
Amanda wrote:
> 
> > what about Kelley and that other person, Carolyn?
> We kind of got lost 
> > in the "scrubbing" discussion, but considering
> that we don't need to 
> > scrub for either of these people, because there's
> nothing of concern 
> > there about either one, can we move on their
> membership?
> 
> I went back and checked, and we *did* need to scrub
> for Kelley.  I
> went ahead and deleted my own recent message
> discussing her request to
> join, but there is a message from Sheryll that
> quotes my Kelley
> message at length.  
> 
> Sheryll, would you please delete that message?  I
> could do it, but I
> thought it best to ask your permission to delete the
> post.
> 
I will oblige. 

Sheryll

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From editor at texas.net  Sun Oct 12 21:57:19 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:57:19 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bmcfi6+9n9j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bmcinv+gh9n@eGroups.com>

Cindy:
> A proposal, then. 
> 
> How about if this group decides to review its archives before new
> members arrive and to delete anything that might embarrass a new
> member, as we have done in the past?  If MEG comes up with some
> compelling reason to handle things differently, they can tell us and
> we can reconsider our decision, of course.  This proposal will avoid
> delay in bringing in new members, it will avoid spending any more 
time
> and effort on the issue, and it will side-step all of those sticky
> autonomy issues as well!  Ever So Awesome!
> 
> How about if no one objects to this proposal in the next few days,
> we'll consider that to be our group consensus decision?  Or, if we
> prefer to go with majority rule on this one, I guess we could draft
> and run a poll.

Why can't we just wait and see what the MEG list determines, before 
visiting this issue ourselves? I mean, it's not exactly something 
burning right at the minute, no new members are proposed that 
*require* anything to be scrubbed, what's wrong with back-burnering 
it for a bit so MEG can percolate? Why do concurrent deliberations, 
and then possibly have to revisit?

Not understanding the urgency,

~Amanda





From editor at texas.net  Sun Oct 12 21:59:22 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:59:22 -0000
Subject: Back to the question... (MEMB)
In-Reply-To: <20031012211759.49835.qmail@web41101.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bmcirq+c5rd@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> > I went back and checked, and we *did* need to scrub
> > for Kelley.  I
> > went ahead and deleted my own recent message
> > discussing her request to
> > join, but there is a message from Sheryll that
> > quotes my Kelley
> > message at length.  

I'm baffled now. I thought your message had indicated that Kelley was 
fine. So *any* mention of potential members should go?

~Amanda






From mariaalena at yandex.ru  Mon Oct 13 03:22:32 2003
From: mariaalena at yandex.ru (maria_kirilenko)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 03:22:32 -0000
Subject: Hi!
Message-ID: <bmd5po+3o76@eGroups.com>

*waves*

Hi, my name is Maria and I want to write FAQs. 

Thank you very much for the all the welcomes. Sorry for taking so 
long to say hello ? I've been trying to orient myself here a little. 
I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do now, but Amanda said that a bio 
is in order. So, here goes.

> Real name:
Maria Kirilenko. Googling for my name will never give a useful result.

> Also known as:
Masha, Manya and variations of these. My mother calls me "dear" when 
she's annoyed with me. I sign onlist posts with "Maria Alena." 

> Age/Sex:
18/female 

> Birthplace/Livingplace:
Born and grew up in Moscow, Russia. Right now I live in Indiana.

> Family Life:
I still live with my family ? mother, father, and younger sister. 
They drive me crazy on occasion, but usually we get along very well. 
All of my wonderful extended family lives in Russia.

> Personality:
Er
 I took an online Myers-Briggs test once, and forgot the (highly 
inaccurate) results a half an hour later. The analysis of my first 
name at http://www.kabalarians.com scares me, though. It's much too 
accurate.

> Words friends have used to describe you:
Nice, lazy, inert, much too mathematically inclined, overly self-
analytical, cynical, bleeding heart.

> Words you have used to describe you:
Good-natured, careful, tolerant, nice, extremely lazy, inert, 
sentimental, nave, awkward.

> Comfort foods:
Tea, sandwiches, and salads. 

> Anything else you'd like to reveal?:
Well, I don't believe in fortune-telling, but I swore to never, 
*ever* have a gypsy do it for me.

> Education/Work:
Right now I'm a sophomore in university. I'm studying actuarial 
science and statistics, learning to live with a constant feeling that 
I should have gone into literature or theatre instead. I don't work 
for *money* at the moment, but do a lot of volunteering.

> Language skills:
Aspiring polyglot, but the key word there is "aspiring." I'm fluent 
in Russian and, erm, almost fluent in English. I hope. The language 
I'm learning right now is French, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't die 
in a francophone country if I were to be stranded there.

The next languages on the list are German and Italian, but that's 
assuming I don't hear a very pretty song in another language before 
that. (Mental note: must not listen to Barry sisters.)
 
> Technical know-how:
Not much really useful stuff. I know just about enough HTML to have 
fun on livejournal (username alpheratz), and I have no knowledge of 
Yahoomort whatsoever. I am capable of following instructions and 
learning, though. 

Okay, now here's the fun stuff:

> Favourite HP book:
Goblet of Fire, although I readily admit that Prisoner of Azkaban is 
the best book. I also loved Order of the Phoenix. 

> Favourite HP character(s):
Remus Lupin. I've loved him since his "Is there a problem?" line. He 
is so-- ahem. Right. After OOP I started to *really* like McGonagall. 
Just for the record, I think that JKR threw all those Stunning Spells 
at her to make the readers realize how much they love her. Also, I 
absolutely adore Luna.

> Favourite HP lines:

Most of Ron's funny lines, including "There's going to be loads of 
fog tonight." 

"Or maybe he's waiting to hear why you two didn't arrive on the 
school train."

"Yeah, Quirrell was a great teacher. There was just that minor 
drawback of him having Voldemort sticking out of the back of his 
head." 

"It unscrews the other way."

And I love the Umbridge detention scenes, because they made me shake 
with helpless anger. I don't remember the last time when I had such a 
strong reaction to fiction. 

> Watching/Avoiding the HP movie?:
Enthusiastically watching and enthusiastically complaining about it 
to anyone who will listen. But now that Emma Thompson's signed on, 
the complaining factor will probably go down lots. 

> Into HP fanfiction?
I was very into it before this summer. Now I'm almost exclusively 
following the fics and authors I started reading then. 

> How about HP merchandise?
Not at all. Although I'm thinking about knitting a Ravenclaw scarf.

> Current reading:
"The Brothers Karamazov" and "The System and Methods of Creative Art" 
by Stanislavsky. I've been torturing those for over a month, and at 
the moment I just hope to finish them by the end of the year. I'm 
also reading "A Portrait of a Killer," which seems to be coming along 
a little better, perhaps because I skip the gory details. 

> Favourite books:
That's a hard one. I can't really answer it, but some of the books 
I'm attached to are: The Red and the Black, Notre Dame de Paris, 
Bunin's short stories, The Three Musketeers, Anna Karenina, The 
Cherry Orchard, and, of course, Harry Potter. 

> Favourite music:
Just about anything "beautiful," which is a broad category I can't 
really define, but which includes opera, some classical music, Edith 
Piaf, the Russian romance, and lots of other different stuff. My 
current favourite is "The Prettiest Star" by David Bowie.

> Favourite cinema:
Sense and Sensibility, How to Steal a Million, most Hitchcock films, 
lots of Russian classics. And I'm very much in love with Pirates of 
the Caribbean at the moment.

> One thing about your life you'd change if you could, and you may 
not say "lose weight":
Have more motivation and more ambition (both of those are 
frighteningly close to zero). 

> One thing about your life you wouldn't change even for an advance 
copy of Book 7:
I wouldn't take an advance copy of Book 7, because there'd be no one 
to discuss it with. 

> How you found HPfGU:
Why, the Harry Potter Lexicon, of course!

> Your most rock solid Book 7 prediction:
My most rock solid prediction, Trelawney-style, is that we'll all be 
*really* surprised.

> Ask yourself a question and answer it:

Q: Which of the sections of Fantastic Posts did you read first?
A: Mysteries and Inconsistencies.

> Something you'd do over if you had the chance:
I'd do everything to keep several of my school friends I lost because 
of my former dislike of writing letters. 

That seems to be it. I tried to cut down on the rambling. :-)

Maria 




From abigailnus at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 13 09:30:02 2003
From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:30:02 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bmcfi6+9n9j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bmdraq+rp8g@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> wrote:
> Now, on to this question of scrubbing . . . 
> 
> One thing I noticed when I was running this group last year is that
> administrative issues can easily swallow you whole.  They just keep
> coming at you, one after another, and before you know it, you're all
> bogged down.  Now that all of us are working together in some loose
> form of governance, we run the risk of being repeatedly derailed by
> discussions of administrative issues.

We *run the risk*?

> How about if this group decides to review its archives before new
> members arrive and to delete anything that might embarrass a new
> member, as we have done in the past?  

I have to say I'm not entirely certain why this is such a big issue on this 
particular list.  Our mandate is writing FAQs, which usually doesn't entail 
discussing other group members.  I remember when I joined, going back 
in the archives and finding the endless cataloguing messages, some of 
which did contain comments on individual posters, but mostly those were 
the posters that we would never consider having here.  I might understand 
this kind of precaution on MEG, and indeed when I received my invitation 
to that group I was warned that I might find myself discussed in the archives, 
but why is it so significant here?  

Generally speaking, I'm opposed to scrubbing the archives.  I think by 
deleting past messages we delete the only record of our history, and we may 
end up losing vital information in the rush to expunge off-hand insults.  
Besides, as other posters have noted, knowing that we may end up being 
accountable for our words might help to reduce those off-hand comments.  
This list is not intended to allow us a place to vent with impunity.  That's what 
personal e-mails and weblogs are for. <g>

Getting back to Carolyn and Kelley, would it be possible to discuss the merits 
of inviting either of them?  My experiences with Kelley on MEG have only been 
positive, and I think she'd be an asset.  Carolyn also seems eager to help, but 
is anyone else concerned about her brief tenure on the main list?

Abigail




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Oct 13 13:15:20 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:15:20 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: General Policy Stuff
In-Reply-To: <bmdraq+rp8g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c3918c$0e103ce0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi,
 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Abigail (on scrubbing):
 
I have to say I'm not entirely certain why this is such a big issue on
this 
particular list.  
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
<low moan>
 
It's *not* a big issue.  That's what I've been trying to say!  
 
The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring in
new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
embarrassing mentions of themselves).  It works *fine.*  We have never,
*ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know.  We rarely even need to
*think* about it.  No one has provided a single reason why the status
quo needs to be disturbed.  
 
I would like to keep the status quo intact and *move on,* myself.  
 
So if everyone thinks the status quo is just fine, then we are done
here.  If someone has a good reason why we need to *change* our
scrubbing policy, perhaps they could state what that reason is so we
could consider it?  Otherwise, I really think we are in very good shape
here.
 
Cindy 
 


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




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Oct 13 18:46:33 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:46:33 -0000
Subject: I Keep Changing My Mind!
Message-ID: <bmeru9+d44k@eGroups.com>

Hi,

OK, I've changed my mind.  Again.  Rather than revise the Pettigrew
FP, I think I'll revise the Mysteries FP.  I think Mysteries is still
unclaimed.  So Pettigrew is up for grabs, if anyone wants him.

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Mon Oct 13 21:25:18 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:25:18 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: General Policy Stuff
References: <000001c3918c$0e103ce0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <000b01c391d0$81403640$dc59aacf@texas.net>

Cindy:

> <low moan>
>
> It's *not* a big issue.  That's what I've been trying to say!
>
> The FAQ list already *has* a policy (we scrub if and when we bring in
> new members, and this is done to protect new members from reading
> embarrassing mentions of themselves).  It works *fine.*  We have never,
> *ever* had a problem with it, so far as I know.  We rarely even need to
> *think* about it.  No one has provided a single reason why the status
> quo needs to be disturbed.

Well, possibly because not all of us were aware of it. I am unwilling to let
this become An Issue, but I am equally unwilling to let my silence be
consent. I do not give consent for my posts to be deleted by anyone other
than myself, and I'm not sure Yahoo gave it on my behalf, either.

Hypothetical: if you'd asked Sheryll to delete her post, but she'd seen
nothing wrong with it, and declined--what would have happened? From my
reading of the current policy, you'd have deleted it anyway and apologized.
I can't agree to a policy where someone other than the author deletes posts.
This is very too much like altering history for me.

I think we spend far too much time discussing new members. I think if they
want to help, they're in. I don't know why we have to discuss them at all.
This was always a "jump in, the water's fine" type list in the past; lately
(it feels to me) that it has gotten a bit exclusionary.

~Amanda






From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Mon Oct 13 21:37:47 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:37:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Hi!
In-Reply-To: <bmd5po+3o76@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031013213747.91052.qmail@web14303.mail.yahoo.com>


--- maria_kirilenko <mariaalena at yandex.ru> wrote:
> *waves*
> 
> Hi, my name is Maria and I want to write FAQs. 

Howdy, Maria!

> 
> Thank you very much for the all the welcomes. Sorry
> for taking so 
> long to say hello  I've been trying to orient
> myself here a little. 

Oh, that's fine. No one ever roped me into the bio,
and I've been here for months.

> > Age/Sex:
> 18/female 

HEY!

You're my age! And a lot better-read than I am,
apparently. : )

> > Birthplace/Livingplace:
> Born and grew up in Moscow, Russia. Right now I live
> in Indiana.

How does Indiana compare to Moscow? Is it deadly dull?
(I bet the architecture isn't much to write home
about, anyway.)

> > Anything else you'd like to reveal?:
> Well, I don't believe in fortune-telling, but I
> swore to never, 
> *ever* have a gypsy do it for me.

If there's a story here, I want to hear it.

> The next languages on the list are German and
> Italian, but that's 
> assuming I don't hear a very pretty song in another
> language before 
> that. (Mental note: must not listen to Barry
> sisters.)
  
I have some lovely songs by Celtic artists that I
could recommend to you if you like. ; )

> After OOP I started to *really*
> like McGonagall. 
> Just for the record, I think that JKR threw all
> those Stunning Spells 
> at her to make the readers realize how much they
> love her. 

And possibly to dispell ESE!McGonagall.

<sighs>

It is almost *impossible* to like that theory now,
isn't it?

> > Watching/Avoiding the HP movie?:
> Enthusiastically watching and enthusiastically
> complaining about it 
> to anyone who will listen. But now that Emma
> Thompson's signed on, 
> the complaining factor will probably go down lots. 

I think that Cuaron is going to do *worlds* for the
movies.
 
> > Favourite cinema:
> Sense and Sensibility, How to Steal a Million, most
> Hitchcock films -- 

Hey, hey hey hey!

Which ones? Do you tend to prefer his lighter,
thriller-y ones, like _North by Northwest_, or the
darker, more Bent ones, ala _Vertigo_?

> That seems to be it. I tried to cut down on the
rambling. :-)

Aw, no, you weren't rambling! If you think that
*that's* rambling, you're gonna be in for a couple of
unpleasant surprises around here! : D

Welcome, Maria!




Derannimer, who knows from rambling

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Oct 13 21:53:15 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:53:15 -0000
Subject: General Policy Stuff (MEM)
In-Reply-To: <000b01c391d0$81403640$dc59aacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <bmf6sb+bubu@eGroups.com>

Hi again!

Amanda:

> Hypothetical: if you'd asked Sheryll to delete her post, but she'd
>seen nothing wrong with it, and declined--what would have happened? 


Hey, guys?  

OoP came out in *June,* and four months (and over 30,000 posts) have
passed since then.  During that period, Dicey uploaded something or
other related to Sirius, and Porphyria uploaded some of my minor
"HPfGU -- A History" changes and a few other odds and ends that I
wrote IIRC *before* OoP.

Other than that, *diddly squat* out of this group, IIRC. <g>

Can I suggest that we stop squabbling about *hypothetical* issues of
*power* and *control* and *preserving the history of this group for
future generations of FAQers and historians alike* and see if instead
the group can maybe get around to producing an FP or two? <g>

But to answer the hypothetical question on the table, if Sheryll had
not deleted the message I asked her to delete, the message would still
be there.  Similarly, *if* we decide Michelle can join us, I will ask
that a couple of you delete messages that quote my opinions.  

If you delete the message, I will thank you. (Thanks, Sheryll!).

If you do not, then she will arrive here and perhaps be embarrassed by
reading my remarks.  

So you'll have to decide what is most important, I guess:  sparing a
new member needless embarrassment, or insisting that *your* post
remain in the archives No Matter Who Gets Hurt.

Amanda:

>From my reading of the current policy, you'd have deleted it anyway
>and apologized.

Mmmm, I don't think I said that.  I would have deleted it under the
current policy *if* I were the leader of this group.  I am not.


> I think we spend far too much time discussing new members. I think
>if they want to help, they're in. 

Then let's put out an "all hands" call to the main list; I believe
Phyllis suggested this in August.  *Anyone* from HPfGU who wants to
join this list would receive an invitation immediately and could get
to work.  This would represent a seismic shift in our current
membership policy, but if that's what the group wants to do, let's
make it so!  

Since Phyllis did raise this issue once already, how about I set up a
non-binding poll?  I'll take my best shot at writing a good poll.  If
I don't do a good job on it, we can always ditch it and post a
different one.

Cindy 




From HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com  Mon Oct 13 22:04:58 2003
From: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com (HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 13 Oct 2003 22:04:58 -0000
Subject: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ 
Message-ID: <1066082698.681.46658.w14@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HP4GU-FAQ group:

Non-Binding Poll:  Should we adopt a FAQ
list membership policy to be an "open"
membership?  In other words, should we
seek volunteers from the HPfGU lists
such that any HPfGU member who wishes to
join and do FAQ list work would be
welcome here and would be sent an
invitation upon request? 

  o Yes, I think we should allow any HPfGU member who wishes to join FAQ to do so. 
  o No, I think we should keep our group small. 
  o No, I think we should evaluate the merits of the candidacy of anyone who expresses interest in joining us. 
  o No, I think we should primarily recruit when we need new members and should not solicit volunteers. 
  o No, I believe we should evaluate the candidacy of those proposed for membership in this list. 
  o I have something else in mind, and I'll explain my position in a message to the FAQ list. 
  o I don't know, but I'll try to decide as the discussion continues. 
  o Other (please explain on FAQ list) 
  o I think the group is large enough and we shouldn't expand membership much right now. 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/surveys?id=1144293  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From editor at texas.net  Tue Oct 14 18:44:12 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 18:44:12 -0000
Subject: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
In-Reply-To: <1066082698.681.46658.w14@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <bmhg5s+esf7@eGroups.com>

Is this set up so you can answer multiples? Because some of these are 
not mutually exclusive.

~Amanda

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com wrote:
> 
> Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
> HP4GU-FAQ group:
> 
> Non-Binding Poll:  Should we adopt a FAQ
> list membership policy to be an "open"
> membership?  In other words, should we
> seek volunteers from the HPfGU lists
> such that any HPfGU member who wishes to
> join and do FAQ list work would be
> welcome here and would be sent an
> invitation upon request? 
> 
>   o Yes, I think we should allow any HPfGU member who wishes to 
join FAQ to do so. 
>   o No, I think we should keep our group small. 
>   o No, I think we should evaluate the merits of the candidacy of 
anyone who expresses interest in joining us. 
>   o No, I think we should primarily recruit when we need new 
members and should not solicit volunteers. 
>   o No, I believe we should evaluate the candidacy of those 
proposed for membership in this list. 
>   o I have something else in mind, and I'll explain my position in 
a message to the FAQ list. 
>   o I don't know, but I'll try to decide as the discussion 
continues. 
>   o Other (please explain on FAQ list) 
>   o I think the group is large enough and we shouldn't expand 
membership much right now. 
> 
> 
> To vote, please visit the following web page:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/surveys?id=1144293  
> 
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
> web site listed above.
> 
> Thanks!




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Oct 14 18:48:32 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 14:48:32 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
In-Reply-To: <bmhg5s+esf7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002401c39283$c85f3680$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Yes.  Choose as many as you like.  It's just a conversation-starter
poll, if you will.
 
Cindy
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Amanda [mailto:editor at texas.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 2:44 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ
 
Is this set up so you can answer multiples? Because some of these are 
not mutually exclusive.

~Amanda

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com wrote:
> 
> Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
> HP4GU-FAQ group:
> 
> Non-Binding Poll:  Should we adopt a FAQ
> list membership policy to be an "open"
> membership?  In other words, should we
> seek volunteers from the HPfGU lists
> such that any HPfGU member who wishes to
> join and do FAQ list work would be
> welcome here and would be sent an
> invitation upon request? 
> 
>   o Yes, I think we should allow any HPfGU member who wishes to 
join FAQ to do so. 
>   o No, I think we should keep our group small. 
>   o No, I think we should evaluate the merits of the candidacy of 
anyone who expresses interest in joining us. 
>   o No, I think we should primarily recruit when we need new 
members and should not solicit volunteers. 
>   o No, I believe we should evaluate the candidacy of those 
proposed for membership in this list. 
>   o I have something else in mind, and I'll explain my position in 
a message to the FAQ list. 
>   o I don't know, but I'll try to decide as the discussion 
continues. 
>   o Other (please explain on FAQ list) 
>   o I think the group is large enough and we shouldn't expand 
membership much right now. 
> 
> 
> To vote, please visit the following web page:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/surveys?id=1144293  
> 
> Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
> not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
> web site listed above.
> 
> Thanks!





Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12o885gmo/*http:/hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/aut
oredir?camp=556&lineid=3614674?=egroupweb&pos=HM> 

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=259395.3614674.4902533.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1524963/rand=661164328> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 14 19:17:29 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 19:17:29 -0000
Subject: SLYTHERIN: A new table for us! ;-)
Message-ID: <bmhi49+52ba@eGroups.com>

Hey fellow Slyths!

I dunno 'bout y'all, but I'm *dying* here; that is, I can't seem to 
find enough posts related to our subject. At least, I haven't found a 
whole ton of really great ones... yet. I'd feel kind of guilty if we 
just used anything that was out there for the sake of putting 
together the essay.

I've started combing through some of the other FP's, and hope to 
steal some of those references for our project (hey - a FP is a FP, 
right? We can use the same ones over again if necessary...) and I'm 
hoping that if anyone finds anything particularly grand in the 
archives or amongst the current messages, they'd add it for us... and 
this might be a good way to keep track of some good posts for 
ourselves.

Anyways, I put a few in there, but I'm getting the feeling that we're 
gonna have to do some serious combing of the list over the next few 
weeks...

Yay! Projects are *fun*!

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Wed Oct 15 15:32:55 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 15:32:55 -0000
Subject: Um... question on hubris.
Message-ID: <bmjpb7+docj@eGroups.com>

I have a question here for some of y'all who have written FP's 
before...

Is there any conflict of interest if you want to include your own 
work in an FP? I mean, I have issues with nominating my own work 
as 'Fantastic,' you know? 

Let me provide a concrete example. I have written a few posts on Dark 
Magic, and I think that they might handily work into the Death Eater 
FP that we're working on. But I don't want to use them if it'll 
appear as though I'm simply tooting my own horn.

What's the general approach to this stuff, since a lot of us are very 
good writers and have written many of the quality posts that one 
would want to include in an FP?

-Tom




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 15 15:53:35 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:53:35 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Um... question on hubris.
In-Reply-To: <bmjpb7+docj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001301c39334$7e049d80$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Oooooh, a good question!  Here's the answer:  "I dunno."
 
Now, a bit of history . . . 
 
Way back when, Dicey, Tabouli, Elkins and I put pen to paper on
Hypothetic Alley.  We soon realized the obvious - because we had all
been very active in what ultimately became Theory Bay, most of the posts
we cited were our own.  Ew, how self-aggrandizing! we thought.  But then
again, we *had* to include those posts, not because they were fantastic,
but because . . . well, if you wanted to be up to speed on SYCOPHANTS,
you had to read Elkins' posts on the subject.
 
We dealt with this in a few different ways.  First, we included links to
the various theories in HA, but we didn't include any names of theory
proponents themselves in the text.  So you won't find "Elkins, founder
of SYCOPHANTS, explained the theory thusly . . . ."  Nevertheless,
anyone willing to click a mouse can figure out which listmember was
involved in this or that theory.  
 
We also didn't include individual authorship credits for HA submissions.
So Eloise wrote the entry on Hedgehogs, and Pip wrote the MD entry, but
you'd never know that from reading the document.  Instead, Eloise is
credited in the acknowledgements, and Pip's contribution seems to have
been completely ignored.  <whoops; gotta fix that>  Part of our thinking
there was that, although Tabouli put the "stick" in LOLLIPOPS, if you
will, she was not the first to make the canon argument.  Personally, I
felt that crediting one person with a theory was likely to cause others
who may have said something similar to feel slighted.
 
This was less of a problem when I wrote "HPfGU:  A History."  I cited
none of my own stuff there because I was but a glimmer in Penny's eye
when all of that history took place.
 
Regarding the "Mysteries" update, I did notice that the same people were
having their posts cited over and over, myself included.  Because of
that, I, er, went back through the later draft and deleted some links to
my own posts and instead linked to someone else who had also posted on
the subject.
 
That said, I know others have done things differently.  The Snape FP,
for instance, does credit authors of posts and theories by name.
Perhaps its authors (Porphyria and Gwen?) will elaborate on how that
worked out or why they approached it that way.
 
Tom does raise an interesting question, though.  To date, FAQers have
chosen to work on whatever was of interest to them.  Would it be better
if we all tried not to work on something in which we've been intimately
involved to avoid any accusations or suspicions of self-promotion?  I
dunno.  I'm just tossing the idea out.
 
Cindy - who had a blast working on HA Back In The Day
 
 


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




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Wed Oct 15 15:59:22 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Um... question on hubris.
In-Reply-To: <bmjpb7+docj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031015155922.89232.qmail@web14305.mail.yahoo.com>

--- Tom Wall <thomasmwall at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have a question here for some of y'all who have
> written FP's 
> before...
> 
> Is there any conflict of interest if you want to
> include your own 
> work in an FP? I mean, I have issues with nominating
> my own work 
> as 'Fantastic,' you know? 
> 
> Let me provide a concrete example. I have written a
> few posts on Dark 
> Magic, and I think that they might handily work into
> the Death Eater 
> FP that we're working on. But I don't want to use
> them if it'll 
> appear as though I'm simply tooting my own horn.
> 
> What's the general approach to this stuff, since a
> lot of us are very 
> good writers and have written many of the quality
> posts that one 
> would want to include in an FP?
> 
> -Tom

I think mostly we stand around looking at our feet and
shuffling and waiting for one of our house-mates to
include us.

No, seriously, Tom, if you don't put your posts in,
I'll have to, and they might be easier for you to
find. Face it, you *do* write fantastic posts; and if
you're bringing up the question, then you're probably
not the sort who'd just go and plug himself
gratuitously anyway.

Here's a question, though: will the FAQ's be
"peer-reviewed," so to speak, before they go up? If
so, then if one of us refers to a decidedly silly
post, the rest of us will get a chance to remove the
reference. (I don't know if the idea of being edited
would bug anyone else in SLYTH, but it wouldn't bug
me, at any rate.) That ought to catch any ego-tripping
that slips in.




Derannimer, who plans to stand around and shuffle, herself

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com



From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Oct 15 16:08:28 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:08:28 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Um... question on hubris.
In-Reply-To: <bmjpb7+docj@eGroups.com>
References: <bmjpb7+docj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1066234118.15FCB98B@r5.dngr.org>

Well, the legal issues faq is mostly my own posts and analysis, and my 
fic is included on the fanfic faq (although in the interest of full 
disclosure it was added by penny before I took over maintenance of the 
faq) so I think in some circumstances it makes perfect sense. And the 
snape faq, iirc, draws extensively from its authors' posts as well...


On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:34AM -0500, Tom Wall wrote:
> Real-To:  "Tom Wall" <thomasmwall at yahoo.com>
>
> I have a question here for some of y'all who have written FP's
> before...
>
> Is there any conflict of interest if you want to include your own
> work in an FP? I mean, I have issues with nominating my own work
> as 'Fantastic,' you know?
>
> Let me provide a concrete example. I have written a few posts on Dark
> Magic, and I think that they might handily work into the Death Eater
> FP that we're working on. But I don't want to use them if it'll
> appear as though I'm simply tooting my own horn.
>
> What's the general approach to this stuff, since a lot of us are very
> good writers and have written many of the quality posts that one
> would want to include in an FP?
>
> -Tom
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Wed Oct 15 16:14:54 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 09:14:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Um... question on hubris.
In-Reply-To: <001301c39334$7e049d80$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <20031015161454.94939.qmail@web14310.mail.yahoo.com>

The Captain wrote:

> Tom does raise an interesting question, though.  To
> date, FAQers have
> chosen to work on whatever was of interest to them. 
> Would it be better
> if we all tried not to work on something in which
> we've been intimately
> involved to avoid any accusations or suspicions of
> self-promotion?  I
> dunno.  I'm just tossing the idea out.

Nah, I don't think so. I think that, on the whole,
people will work harder, and work *better,* on a topic
they're interested in. 

And, since they will presumably have *read* a lot
about topics they like, they may be more easily able
to recognize FP's when they see them -- I know a
Fantastic Snape or Shipping post when I see it; I
couldn't tell you whether a post about, say, how many
students there are at Hogwarts was Fantastic or not,
because I wouldn't have enough knowledge of the topic
to judge. I'd just be going on my instincts, and
*that* could wind up being a lousy way to do things. 

Anyway, it's worked out okay before; as you mentioned,
TBAYers all wrote HA, and it's a very entertaining and
helpful FAQ; Porphyria co-wrote Snape -- IMHO, one of
the *best* current FAQ's we've got -- and half of the
posts in that thing must be hers. (Or if they're not,
they should be.)




Derannimer, who doesn't know, come to think of it,
that's she's ever written all that much about DE's


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Oct 16 15:22:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:22:12 -0000
Subject: Poll, New Prefix (?) and Mysteries FP
Message-ID: <bmmd34+a3p3@eGroups.com>

Hey, all,

It's been a few days, and we haven't made much progress on the straw
poll I set up about membership.  Many of us felt pretty strongly about
this issue this summer, so I can only conclude that the problem is 
. . . 

<wince>

. . . .  that my straw poll kinda sucked!  

It's OK.  You can tell me.  I can take it.  ;-)

So, er, are there any comments or suggestions on the poll questions or
issues?  Maybe we'd better start over and get something we all feel
more comfortable with?

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

I had another idea -- I wonder if it might help if we instituted a new
prefix for discussions about FAQ business that isn't specifically the
writing of FAQs.  Maybe "ADMIN" or "POLICY" or something for posts on
those sorts of nuts and bolts administrative isses?  Thoughts?

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

Lastly, I'm getting ready to dip my toe into the Mystery FP re-write.
   The current Mystery FP is:

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/mysteries.html

I guess a starting point will be the OoP FAQs:

http://hpfgu.org.uk/OOTPFAQ.html

but those don't have links, really.

Further complicating matters is that I'm not reading the main list
these days.  So, er . . . 

Can anyone think of any cool mysteries that are getting debated on the
main list?  No need to provide actual posts, but any brainstorming you
all feel like doing would be much appreciated.  I will probably just
toss out the current version and start from scratch.  Maybe.  I'm
thinking about it, anyway.

Cindy -- off to buy a new toilet tank because if you break the top of
your toilet tank, you can't just buy a replacement lid; you have to
buy the whole tank, use the lid, and throw the tank in the trash




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 17 11:52:01 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:52:01 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  General Policy Stuff (OT stuff too)
In-Reply-To: <bm7k6f+3guj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bmol51+9ihv@eGroups.com>

Dicey wrote:

> I believe so, although if you already have more than 15, you can
>keep them (as is the case on other HPfGU lists).  However, if you
>delete one of those, you lose the slot if more than 15 mods remain.

Hmmm.  

Has MEG found any kind of solution for this problem, or are you all
still working on it?  How did MEG manage to get that "HPfGU-elf"
account, and can we do the same thing here?  If someone is willing to
surrender Mod their individual privileges, is it possible to transfer
their privileges to a new Yahoo account?  In other words, if I were
willing to surrender my Mod privileges, could I (and others on this
list) have access to them as "FAQ-member" or something?

Any wisdom you all have learned from your MEG discussions of these
issues would be much appreciated.

> Kelly asked Yahoo if they could make an exception for a 10,000+
>member group such as HPfGU-main and was given an emphatic NO.  So
>that's the end of that.

I know Yahoo has premium groups -- you pay money and you get . . . I
have no idea what.  Has this been explored?

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

Finally, here's a heads up.  

Heidi (through FA) hosts the FPs.  Early this year, the Moderator Team
and MEG agreed to pay her annually for the costs.  I think MEG paid
about $60 for this (raised through voluntary donations from MEGs), and
the money was sent over to Heidi in March or so.  The FPs were
actually uploaded right before the second HP movie was released, which
was mid-November, so our funding obligation may be upon us quite soon.

So what are we going to do about this?  First of all, is this a
FAQ-list issue or a MEG issue?

I'm just going by memory, so correct me if I have my facts wrong.  And
I guess we shouldn't assume the costs are still $60, especially since
 Paul advised that the FPs were tremendously popular.  

Cindy -- who wins the "Wife Of The Year" award for celebrating her
husband's birthday yesterday by first washing and vacuuming his car;
then preparing a grilled steak dinner to be eaten in the dining room
on real linens by candlelight with properly chilled wine with the
children clean and well-behaved followed by homemade cupcakes; and
giving him properly wrapped presents consisting of a golf umbrella, a
CD recommended by Derannimer, books ("Hyperion" and the "Fall of
Hyperion,") two supercool flashlights 'cause he really likes
flashlights, and a digital camera; and who cleaned up the whole mess
afterward





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Sun Oct 19 01:12:37 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 01:12:37 -0000
Subject: Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
Message-ID: <bmsoe5+2puv@eGroups.com>

Just a quick note here...

I've been combing through the archives for a few hours now, and I've 
stumbled upon this amazing set of posts from a member named Peg Kerr. 
She has taken the books and analyzed them in the context of the 
Deadly Sins and Heavenly Virtues. I glanced about the FP page, but 
didn't find any references to these in there. 

Have we used these posts at all? They're awesome, and could 
constitute practically a whole FP all by themselves. I haven't found 
them all yet - I'm gonna take a break now - but I'll keep looking.

Anyways, just throwing that out there for consideration.

-Tom




From heidit at netbox.com  Sun Oct 19 01:41:56 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:41:56 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
In-Reply-To: <bmsoe5+2puv@eGroups.com>
References: <bmsoe5+2puv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1066527719.3A3696EC@r5.dngr.org>

We're publishing a version of them in the nimbus compendium, and I think 
at one point there was a link to her posts from the main faq-page...


On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 9:12PM -0500, Tom Wall wrote:
> Real-To:  "Tom Wall" <thomasmwall at yahoo.com>
>
> Just a quick note here...
>
> I've been combing through the archives for a few hours now, and I've
> stumbled upon this amazing set of posts from a member named Peg Kerr.
> She has taken the books and analyzed them in the context of the
> Deadly Sins and Heavenly Virtues. I glanced about the FP page, but
> didn't find any references to these in there.
>
> Have we used these posts at all? They're awesome, and could
> constitute practically a whole FP all by themselves. I haven't found
> them all yet - I'm gonna take a break now - but I'll keep looking.
>
> Anyways, just throwing that out there for consideration.
>
> -Tom
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From editor at texas.net  Sun Oct 19 01:48:06 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:48:06 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
References: <bmsoe5+2puv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000801c395e3$0bd921c0$2958aacf@texas.net>

Tom:

> I've been combing through the archives for a few hours now, and I've
> stumbled upon this amazing set of posts from a member named Peg Kerr.
> She has taken the books and analyzed them in the context of the
> Deadly Sins and Heavenly Virtues. I glanced about the FP page, but
> didn't find any references to these in there.
>
> Have we used these posts at all? They're awesome, and could
> constitute practically a whole FP all by themselves. I haven't found
> them all yet - I'm gonna take a break now - but I'll keep looking.

They're *famous.* Or they used to be. She originally did just the Sins, and
went on the virtues by popular demand.

The whole set can be found here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/

along with other gems, like Amy's HP-based sermon. Go browse.

~Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Mon Oct 20 13:55:48 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 09:55:48 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
In-Reply-To: <1066527719.3A3696EC@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <000001c39711$ddeeaa70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Happy Good Morning!
 
Heidi:
 
> We're publishing a version of them in the nimbus compendium, 
 
Hey, that reminds me . . .  Whatever happened with the compendium?  Does
it deal with any OoP-related stuff?  Will this group have access to it?
 
Cindy
 
++++++++++++++++
 
Wesley, Wesley, he's our man!  If he can't do it, nobody can!
 
 <http://www.clark04.com/> http://www.clark04.com/
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Heidi Tandy [mailto:heidit at netbox.com] 
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 9:42 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
 
We're publishing a version of them in the nimbus compendium, and I think

at one point there was a link to her posts from the main faq-page...


On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 9:12PM -0500, Tom Wall wrote:
> Real-To:  "Tom Wall" <thomasmwall at yahoo.com>
>
> Just a quick note here...
>
> I've been combing through the archives for a few hours now, and I've
> stumbled upon this amazing set of posts from a member named Peg Kerr.
> She has taken the books and analyzed them in the context of the
> Deadly Sins and Heavenly Virtues. I glanced about the FP page, but
> didn't find any references to these in there.
>
> Have we used these posts at all? They're awesome, and could
> constitute practically a whole FP all by themselves. I haven't found
> them all yet - I'm gonna take a break now - but I'll keep looking.
>
> Anyways, just throwing that out there for consideration.
>
> -Tom
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1595053/R=0/SIG=124gf29oe/*http:/ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitake
nattogyo?YH=3707890&yhad=1595053> Click Here!

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=244522.3707890.4968055.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1595053/rand=880661539> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Oct 21 02:10:48 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 02:10:48 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  More Membership Musings (Oh Boy!) (MEM)
Message-ID: <bn24j8+d8h4@eGroups.com>

Hi, all!

Boy, these administrative issues are almost like *quicksand,* huh?  ;-)

I was thinking about the plight of our poor prospective members --
some of whom have been in a holding pattern for *months* IIRC -- and I
was wondering what we can do to sort ourselves out.

Let's see.  We have the straw poll about whether we ought to have an
open membership, which has been open for a week now.  The gist of the
results to date are that three people seem to favor an open membership
(Cindy, Dicey, Phyllis), three people wish to be selective (Ali,
Derannimer, Joy) with one person (Tom) watching the debate from the
sidelines for now.  That leaves . . . 

<counts on fingers>

. . . 31 people are still pondering their positions.  I'd say we are a
ways from reaching a decision on this one.  ;-)

Indeed, it looks like we may have a bit of gridlock.  Even if we
consider the opinions expressed among our members in the last few
months (excluding those who voted in the polls), we don't get much
closer to a consensus.  We can probably add Penny, Paul and Amanda to
the ranks of those who favor opening our membership (or who believe
our membership has always been open).  (Speak up if I've
mischaracterized your position, Penny, Paul and Amanda).  If so, then
that means there are six of us in favor of an open membership, with
three against and one abstaining.

But that still leaves a significant number of folks who either have no
opinion or who have yet to state it.  It seems to me that if we can't
decide whether we are or are not an open membership list, then we
can't get back to those who have expressed an interest in joining us.

I don't know about anyone else, but it does seem a bit rude to leave
these folks to languish in lieu of an answer, one way or the other. 
My own feeling is that if we are an open membership group, it would be
very unfair to take new FAQ members just from the ranks of HPfGU
members who are fortunate enough to know someone among the existing
FAQ members -- it would be more equitable to give all HPfGU members a
fair and equal shot.  On the other hand, if we are a closed group,
then we probably ought to set about promptly evaluating the candidacy
of each person who has expressed an interest (and determining whether
we need to or want to add to our ranks at all).  

So what do you think?  Is the current straw poll enough of a basis to
say we have a consensus to be an open membership?  

Or maybe we should just leave the status quo as it is until we decide
as a group to do something different?  In that case, someone ought to
write to each list member who has inquired about membership and let
them know that we aren't expanding the group right now, perhaps?  We'd
probably want to do this as soon as we have Sheryll's complete list of
people who have inquired about membership, just to make sure no one
has been missed.  I just hate to keep those people in limbo any longer
if we can avoid it.

Cindy


========================================
 
Wesley, Wesley, he's our man!  If he can't do it, nobody can!
 
http://www.clark04.com/





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 21 19:44:25 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:44:25 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  More Membership Musings (Oh Boy!) (MEM)
In-Reply-To: <bn24j8+d8h4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bn42ap+3ch8@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:
It seems to me that if we can't decide whether we are or are not an 
open membership list, then we can't get back to those who have 
expressed an interest in joining us.

Tom:
After taking a little bit of time to think about this, I've come to a 
decision. And it was this bit of your post, Cindy, that got me to 
this point.

Although I do think that we need to sit down and talk about how we 
want things to run around here eventually, I don't see why we have to 
decide how we're going to operate generally in order to evaluate 
these specific candidates right now. They've either expressed an 
interest or been invited, and have been pending for a while, right? 

We should do them the courtesy of deciding on them right away; I 
suggest that we set a deadline for ourselves in this case of "no more 
than a week" to decide. (All members are checking in once a week at 
least, right?) So we should be able to come up with an answer in a 
week. Can se send a Special Notice or something? One way or the 
other, then the, um, considerees will know where they stand. As far 
as I'm concerned (and having heard nothing truly negative on any of 
them) they've all got my vote. Their names are Michelle, Carolyn, and 
Kelley. Right? ;-)

However, in my opinion, it would be a mistake to open up membership 
fully to the list as a whole (at least at this point); that is to say 
that I don't think we should declare that we're moving into an 
unlimited membership ("You apply, you're in") mentality because I 
think that we'd be very, very unprepared for the influx of people and 
activity that would result. We shouldn't issue a general offer like 
that until we at least work out how things are supposed to *run* 
around here. I know that for the time being we're okay with an 
amicable sort of anarchy, so to speak, but I don't think that our 
present method of operation would be as effective for a group of, oh, 
say the *hundred* that Carolyn spoke of in her suggestion. And I 
think that there are at least twenty-five or more people out there 
who would love to jump right in if such an invite were issued.

SIDE NOTE:
On Carolyn's project - I think it's a good idea, and having been 
combing through archives for the last week or so, I'm convinced that 
she's right about how fluidly work would go with a hundred members. 
But I don't think that all one hundred of them have to be members of 
this group. We (or maybe MEG) could simply create a second group of 
people to work on it. Anyone (including us) could be involved; but I 
don't think it has to be an FAQ thing, per se. It really sounds like 
a true "community" sort-of thing, you know, that every member of 
hpfgu should get the chance to work on.


Anyways, yeah, so I'm all for the three that are pending; we should 
get to them right away.

Unlimited open membership I'm thumbs down on; for now let's just 
continue to evaluate people when they come up.

Carolyn's project gets a thumbs up in concept, but we should consider 
if we want to take it on ourselves or delegate it back over to MEG as 
some kind community-wide group project.

-Tom






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Tue Oct 21 22:36:37 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:36:37 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  More Membership Musings (Oh Boy!) (MEM)
In-Reply-To: <bn42ap+3ch8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bn4cdl+unpd@eGroups.com>

Tom wrote:

>I suggest that we set a deadline for ourselves in this case of "no
>more than a week" to decide. 

Excellent, idea, Tom.


>Can we send a Special Notice or something? 

Sure.  Works for me.  We do need the list of people we are
considering, though.

>One way or the 
> other, then the, um, considerees will know where they stand. As far 
> as I'm concerned (and having heard nothing truly negative on any of 
> them) they've all got my vote. Their names are Michelle, Carolyn,
>and Kelley. Right? ;-)

Well, there are those three, plus a couple of others, IIRC.  I'd like
to see us deal with all of them at once, myself.

FWIW, I still have significant issues with Michelle's candidacy.

> SIDE NOTE:
> On Carolyn's project - I think it's a good idea, and having been 
> combing through archives for the last week or so, I'm convinced that 
> she's right about how fluidly work would go with a hundred members. 


Mmmm, I like Carolyn's idea as well in theory, but I don't think it
should be the work of this group.

A bit of history, then.

<waits for exasperated groans to die down>

When we first began to catalogue posts in October (dang, was that a
whole *year* ago?), Elkins and I (in consultation with a few FAQ
members off-list) gave some thought to the idea of bringing in a huge
wave of new members to help with cataloguing.  This, it was thought,
might make things go more quickly.  

In the end, we decided not to expedite the cataloguing by drastically
increasing membership (choosing to bring in fewer people but making
sure we were confident that they were very bright and excellent
writers), for a host of reasons.  

First, as those who catalogued know, the work may *seem* easy, but it
wasn't.  It required some brain power; there were many judgments to be
made.  

Second, the more people we added, the greater the variation in how
posts would be catalogued, which would lead to an internally
inconsistent end product.  

Third, a stroll through the archives shows that even having a small
number of people cataloguing resulted in some *serious* spikes in
message volume on this list, and much confusion.  

Fourth, assembling a large team of members who will have sustained
interest in the community (defined as getting to work, doing what they
promised to do, and sticking around without unexplained months-long
absences) is not easy.  The burn-out rate in our community can be
pretty high, and the follow-through rate can be rather low at times. 
It would be a shame if huge hunks of the project didn't get completed
because people just became bored and wandered off.

For those reasons, I think it would be better for Carolyn's project to
be a separate Yahoo list with its own membership.

> But I don't think that all one hundred of them have to be members of 
> this group. We (or maybe MEG) could simply create a second group of 
> people to work on it. Anyone (including us) could be involved; but I 
> don't think it has to be an FAQ thing, per se. It really sounds like 
> a true "community" sort-of thing, you know, that every member of 
> hpfgu should get the chance to work on.

This would be OK by me.  They can work under the guidance of MEG, I think.

Frankly . . . 

We haven't exactly been making rapid-fire progress on FAQ work as it
is.  I think expanding the scope of our work would be a mistake at
this point.

Of course . . . 

There's always the chance that some or all of our prospective FAQ list
members (Kelley, Michelle and Carolyn) would want to get that other
group off the ground rather than join us here?  Something to consider
. . . 

Cindy




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Oct 22 00:39:24 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:39:24 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
In-Reply-To: <000001c39711$ddeeaa70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
References: <000001c39711$ddeeaa70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <1066783167.1509F81C@r5.dngr.org>


On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 9:55AM -0500, cindysphynx wrote:
> Real-To:  "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Happy Good Morning!
>
> Heidi:
>
>>  We're publishing a version of them in the nimbus compendium,
>
> Hey, that reminds me . . .  Whatever happened with the compendium?  
> Does
> it deal with any OoP-related stuff?  Will this group have access to it?
>
I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're going to be creating a 
compendium including many presentations and it'll be printed and 
available on cdroms to attendees and presenters-who-didnt-attend, but 
we're not putting them on line.




From editor at texas.net  Wed Oct 22 04:06:24 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist)
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:06:24 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
References: <000001c39711$ddeeaa70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw> <1066783167.1509F81C@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <002301c39851$e23e1c00$dd5aaacf@texas.net>

Heidi, re: Nimbus "compendium"

> I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're going to be creating a
> compendium including many presentations and it'll be printed and
> available on cdroms to attendees and presenters-who-didnt-attend, but
> we're not putting them on line.

AAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH! Say it isn't so! Say this Compendium is NOT the
proceedings and mere mortals like myself will still be able to obtain copies
of same by use of flattery, gold, or homemade Snitch ornaments.

Distraught!Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 22 05:48:00 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:48:00 -0000
Subject: Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
In-Reply-To: <1066783167.1509F81C@r5.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <bn55mg+uss3@eGroups.com>

Hi,

Heidi:

> I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're going to be creating a 
> compendium including many presentations and it'll be printed and 
> available on cdroms to attendees and presenters-who-didnt-attend, but 
> we're not putting them on line.

I think I may have taken one too many prescription painkillers or
something. <g>  I could have sworn that one of said there would be
something from Nimbus that would helpful to this group, and I can't
for the life of me figure out where I got that idea.

Penny did mention doing a "FAP" for Heidi.  What is that?  Could that
be what I was thinking of?

Cindy




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 22 07:05:22 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 07:05:22 -0000
Subject: Did We Lose Someone?
Message-ID: <bn5a7i+10j5l@eGroups.com>

Hey, we're down to 38, it seems.  Did someone take a hike?

Cindy




From dfrankiswork at netscape.net  Wed Oct 22 08:19:42 2003
From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 08:19:42 -0000
Subject: Did We Lose Someone?
In-Reply-To: <bn5a7i+10j5l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bn5eiu+3opl@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:

> Hey, we're down to 38, it seems.  Did someone take a hike?

It was I.  My Netscape mail account has unaccountably been unable to 
send or receive e-mail for a couple of days and Yahoo set me 
to 'bouncing'.  I have un-bounced myself now.

However, that said, I am leaving MEG shortly and I have decided to 
leave the FAQ list, too, as I would like to use what HPFGU time I 
have to concentrate on other things, like reading the lists.

Tigger




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Oct 22 10:49:19 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:49:19 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
In-Reply-To: <bn55mg+uss3@eGroups.com>
References: <bn55mg+uss3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1066819763.BD0A89B@s5.dngr.org>


On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 1:48AM -0500, Cindy C. wrote:
> Real-To:  "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at comcast.net>
>
> Hi,
>
> Heidi:
>
>>  I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're going to be creating a
>>  compendium including many presentations and it'll be printed and
>>  available on cdroms to attendees and presenters-who-didnt-attend, but
>>  we're not putting them on line.
>
> I think I may have taken one too many prescription painkillers or
> something. <g>  I could have sworn that one of said there would be
> something from Nimbus that would helpful to this group, and I can't
> for the life of me figure out where I got that idea.
>
> Penny did mention doing a "FAP" for Heidi.  What is that?  Could that
> be what I was thinking of?
>

FAP isn't anything like FAQ, but now I know what you're talking about.

About a month ago Penny posted that she'd done the character summary of 
Hermione for FAP (fictionalley park) and that it gave her some thoughts 
about the update for the hermione faq, iirc. Totally separate from 
nimbus.




From heidit at netbox.com  Wed Oct 22 11:04:35 2003
From: heidit at netbox.com (Heidi Tandy)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:04:35 -0700
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Seven Deadly Sins and Seven Heavenly Virtues
In-Reply-To: <002301c39851$e23e1c00$dd5aaacf@texas.net>
References: <000001c39711$ddeeaa70$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw> <1066783167.1509F81C@r5.dngr.org> <002301c39851$e23e1c00$dd5aaacf@texas.net>
Message-ID: <1066820680.262A328D@r5.dngr.org>

Oh, meh, yes. It'll be available from cafe press, just not free like the 
cdrom is for attendees and presenters.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:09AM -0500, Amanda Geist wrote:
> Real-To:  "Amanda Geist" <editor at texas.net>
>
> Heidi, re: Nimbus "compendium"
>
>>  I'm not sure what you're asking here. We're going to be creating a
>>  compendium including many presentations and it'll be printed and
>>  available on cdroms to attendees and presenters-who-didnt-attend, but
>>  we're not putting them on line.
>
> AAAAAAAAGGGGGHHHH! Say it isn't so! Say this Compendium is NOT the
> proceedings and mere mortals like myself will still be able to obtain 
> copies
> of same by use of flattery, gold, or homemade Snitch ornaments.
>
> Distraught!Amanda
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Wed Oct 22 21:22:35 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:22:35 -0000
Subject: (MEMB) Let's talk new members.
Message-ID: <bn6ser+mnau@eGroups.com>


Tom (I) wrote:
At minimum, we've got Carolyn, Kelley, and Michelle who are 
interested in joining.

Cindy wrote:
Well, there are those three, plus a couple of others, IIRC. I'd like
to see us deal with all of them at once, myself.

Tom: 
Does anyone know who the others are?

-Tom




From s_ings at yahoo.com  Wed Oct 22 23:28:44 2003
From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 19:28:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] (MEMB) Let's talk new members.
In-Reply-To: <bn6ser+mnau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031022232844.25309.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com>

 --- Tom Wall <thomasmwall at yahoo.com> wrote: > 
> Tom (I) wrote:
> At minimum, we've got Carolyn, Kelley, and Michelle
> who are 
> interested in joining.
> 
> Cindy wrote:
> Well, there are those three, plus a couple of
> others, IIRC. I'd like
> to see us deal with all of them at once, myself.
> 
> Tom: 
> Does anyone know who the others are?
> 
> -Tom
> 
Yup. I've combed the messages since March and there
are few people who have been mentioned that I don't
think were invited or discussed. I've come up with the
following: Grey Wolf, Steve (bboy_mm), Juan Rodriguez
(mentioned twice as being interested in helping with
tech stuff). There was also boyd.t.smythe who
requested membership and was turned down. I don't know
if anyone ever contacted him to ask *why* he'd wanted
to join.

Sorry to take so long to get this together, have been
horrendously busy lately.

Sheryll

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca



From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Thu Oct 23 02:04:16 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 02:04:16 -0000
Subject: (MEMB) Let's talk new members.
In-Reply-To: <20031022232844.25309.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bn7cv0+gd46@eGroups.com>

Sheryll wrote:

> Yup. I've combed the messages since March and there
> are few people who have been mentioned that I don't
> think were invited or discussed. 

I remember one other one - in message #2008, Pippin wrote:

> Also, one of my elfings inquired about the status of the FAQ 
> project...

I'm not sure who the elfling was, but Pippin asked in that message 
whether we should invite him/her aboard.

~Phyllis




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Thu Oct 23 01:55:41 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:55:41 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] (MEMB) Let's talk new members.
In-Reply-To: <20031022232844.25309.qmail@web41111.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005101c39908$c3c8a300$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

I think Phyllis also suggested someone and got no response.  Don't know
if that person is among those mentioned.  Phyllis?
 
Cindy
 
========================================
 
Wesley, Wesley, he's our man!  If he can't do it, nobody can!
 
 <http://www.clark04.com/> http://www.clark04.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: Sheryll Townsend [mailto:s_ings at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 7:29 PM
To: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HP4GU-FAQ] (MEMB) Let's talk new members.
 
--- Tom Wall <thomasmwall at yahoo.com> wrote: > 
> Tom (I) wrote:
> At minimum, we've got Carolyn, Kelley, and Michelle
> who are 
> interested in joining.
> 
> Cindy wrote:
> Well, there are those three, plus a couple of
> others, IIRC. I'd like
> to see us deal with all of them at once, myself.
> 
> Tom: 
> Does anyone know who the others are?
> 
> -Tom
> 
Yup. I've combed the messages since March and there
are few people who have been mentioned that I don't
think were invited or discussed. I've come up with the
following: Grey Wolf, Steve (bboy_mm), Juan Rodriguez
(mentioned twice as being interested in helping with
tech stuff). There was also boyd.t.smythe who
requested membership and was turned down. I don't know
if anyone ever contacted him to ask *why* he'd wanted
to join.

Sorry to take so long to get this together, have been
horrendously busy lately.

Sheryll

=====
http://www.livejournal.com/community/conventionalley/

______________________________________________________________________ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1754016/R=0/SIG=11pv1u2ju/*http:/www.ediets.com/start.cfm?co
de=30529&media=atkins> click here

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1754016/rand=791120492> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Thu Oct 23 17:24:34 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:24:34 -0000
Subject: (MEMB) Let's talk new members.
In-Reply-To: <005101c39908$c3c8a300$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bn92si+k858@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:

> I think Phyllis also suggested someone and got no response.  Don't 
> know if that person is among those mentioned.  Phyllis?

Sheryll has the two people I had suggested on her list - I had 
suggested inviting Grey Wolf and Steve (bboy) to join us when we were 
discussing whether to bolster the male population around these parts.

~Phyllis




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Thu Oct 23 17:58:49 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:58:49 -0000
Subject: (MEMB) Prospective Members
Message-ID: <bn94sp+2srs@eGroups.com>

Hey everyone - I figured that I'd compile a short list of all of the 
people who have been mentioned as prospective members on the FP team. 

Several of them have been left hanging for a while now, and so I'm 
sending this out as a "Special Notice." This way, we can all take a 
look at the list and give it some thought.

As a note, I do think that we should make a concerted effort to make 
a decision on these people as soon as possible, so that we can get an 
answer to them at some point in the near future. If we don't get back 
to them (particularly since some have applied) then I think we run 
the risk of being, well, rude. 

I suggested recently that we set a limit of one week to consider this 
issue, to be followed up with answers to those who have applied. Is 
this a problem for anyone?

Anyways, here's the list (as compiled over the last few days):

- Grey Wolf

- Steve (bboy_mn)

- Juan Rodriguez (mentioned twice as being interested in helping with
tech stuff)

- boyd.t.smythe (boyd_smythe) goes by the name "Remnant." Requested 
membership previously and was turned down.

- Carolyn White. She proposed an idea for archiving our collective 
works to MEG, and it was posted here in message 2284 (if you want to 
review it).

- Michelle (Michelle Apostolides aka pinguthegreek, a member of MEG) 
has been on the table for a while.

- Kelley Thompson sent an e-mail requesting membership in this group. 
In message 2298 Ali nominated Kelley (and reposted the request).

- Pippin's elfling. (message 2008) Do you remember who that is, 
Pippin?

- Phyllis' nominee (can't find a message for that.)


Now, I don't know exactly how things have been done before (history 
lessons are welcome); I was sent an invite to join, although I never 
personally applied. 

So, this is how I see it. Some of the candidates have applied 
previously and have been rejected. Some have open applications that 
are pending. And some (as far as I know) have been nominated 
internally by other members... I don't know if they know about it or 
not.

I suggest that we get to the people who have applied first: 
boyd_smythe (Remnant) applied and was turned down, but I don't know 
why the group came to that decision at the time. Can anyone explain 
this? Should we see if he's still interested and/or reconsider him?

Carolyn White and Kelley have sent applications in recently, and 
Michelle's been pending for a while. So we should get to all of them 
first. How does this work? Do we need a majority vote, or just a 
simple consensus, i.e. if there are no strenuous objections, should 
we just tacitly accept the person?

Whatever the case, I think the least pressing item on the agenda are 
the people who have simply been nominated internally, like Grey Wolf, 
Juan Rodriguez, Bboy_mn, and the two anonymous candidates. 

Oh, and if we're missing anyone, now's probably a good time to throw 
in a nominee or two.

Of course, that's all just MHO. ;-)

-Tom




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Oct 23 22:24:58 2003
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:24:58 -0000
Subject: (MEMB) Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bn94sp+2srs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bn9kfq+es2o@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall" 
<thomasmwall at y...> wrote:
reviously and was turned down.
> 
> - Carolyn White. She proposed an idea for archiving our 
collective  works to MEG, and it was posted here in message 
2284 (if you want to  review it).
> 
<snip>
> - Pippin's elfling. (message 2008) Do you remember who that 
is,  Pippin?


One and the same...Carolyn White is the elfling who asked me if 
there were plans to update the FAQS.

Pippin




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Thu Oct 23 23:29:16 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:29:16 -0000
Subject: Order of the Flying Hedgehog = accused Death Eater.
Message-ID: <bn9o8c+h2oj@eGroups.com>

Hey all - 

Logistical question here.

I checked out Hypothetic Alley and found an explanation for the 
founding and naming of the "Order of the Flying Hedgehog." But there 
isn't a summary of examples. (I know, I know, I'm *always* bringing 
this up - it's because I think that the "Ever So Evil" posts are 
really fun and interesting...)

Anyways, I was thinking that we Slytherins might (just might, if 
you're all really well-behaved) have room in our FP for an "accused" 
section, which ties in nicely with the Hedgehog stuff. Or does it not 
exactly "tie in nicely" as much as it "completely overlaps and steals 
material from Hypothetic Alley"?

Is this an overlap that we should avoid? Could we use the "accused 
Death Eater" heading and somehow connect it to Hypothetic Alley via 
hyperlink? I don't want to be redundant, if we can avoid it.

-Tom

PS: In case you're interested, here are the accusations I've found so 
far:

16453/ Hermione
16823/ Rita Skeeter
25480/ Ludo Bagman
29901/ E!McGonagall
30226/ E!McGonagall
30269/ McGonagall
30721/ Ron
34170/ Bagman
39362/ E!Lupin
39470/ Evil!McGonagall
30403/ E!Fudge
82746/ Molly
82860/ Lupin
82981/ Tonks





From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Thu Oct 23 23:36:10 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:36:10 -0000
Subject: SLYTHERIN: A new table for us! 
In-Reply-To: <bmhi49+52ba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bn9ola+3193@eGroups.com>

<groan> Well, there are about 140 records in that table now... 

I've been combing piecemeal through the archives, and have found some 
stuff that's interesting. A lot of it is redundant, and 
unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a ton of members discussing 
the Death Eaters. But still, there's some interesting stuff out there.

Right now, I'm working on some Dark Mark stuff, just so's y'all 
know. ;-)

-Tom




From erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 24 01:34:00 2003
From: erisedstraeh2002 at yahoo.com (Phyllis)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 01:34:00 -0000
Subject: (MEMB) Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bn94sp+2srs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bn9vi8+6jl6@eGroups.com>

Tom wrote:

> Anyways, here's the list (as compiled over the last few days):
> 
> - Grey Wolf
> - Steve (bboy_mn)

They were my nominees, and I'm still in favor of both of them.

Tom:

> - Juan Rodriguez (mentioned twice as being interested in helping 
> with tech stuff)
> - boyd.t.smythe (boyd_smythe) goes by the name "Remnant." Requested 
> membership previously and was turned down.
> - Carolyn White. She proposed an idea for archiving our collective 
> works to MEG, and it was posted here in message 2284 (if you want 
> to review it).

I do not know these three individuals, but if they are willing to 
help us out, I say let's get them in here ASAP!

Tom:
 
> - Michelle (Michelle Apostolides aka pinguthegreek, a member of 
> MEG) has been on the table for a while.
> - Kelley Thompson sent an e-mail requesting membership in this 
> group. 

I know both Michelle and Kelley, and think they would both be 
tremendous assets to this team.  FYI, Kelley is also a member of MEG 
(and is a darn good elf!).

I had previously suggested that we create a database into which names 
of potential FAQ-ers could be entered.  We would then set a deadline 
(perhaps the 1-week deadline Tom proposed) by which, if no one had 
stated objections to the individuals listed in the database, an 
invitation to join would be issued.  What do folks think about that?

~Phyllis




From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 24 02:16:13 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 02:16:13 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members (reformatted)
In-Reply-To: <000801c3999d$c1859c20$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bna21d+1ip7@eGroups.com>

Aw, crap.  I just *cannot* get the hang of posting from e-mail.  I'll
clean this up and delete the original . . . 

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

Thanks for keeping the ball rolling on this, Tom.
  
> Tom:
>  
> Several of them have been left hanging for a while now, and so I'm 
> sending this out as a "Special Notice." This way, we can all take a 
> look at the list and give it some thought.

 
  
FWIW, sending this as a special notice means that it won't reach those
who have chosen "No e-mail" as their FAQ list delivery option (I
think).  You'll need to either switch those FAQ members to "Special
Notices" or you'll have to send this to them as an off-list.  FWIW,
when I ran the group, I tried to keep everyone on "Special Notices"
and use those notices very rarely, but I don't know how we want to
handle that now.  I don't know if any of us currently has the
authority to change anyone else's delivery options without permission.
 
>  - boyd.t.smythe (boyd_smythe) goes by the name "Remnant." Requested 
> membership previously and was turned down.


I have been trying to figure out what happened here, fully expecting
to see my fingerprints all over this one.  I have no recollection of
dealing with his membership request, and I couldn't find anything by
searching "Moderator Activity."  Is he a member of the main list? 
How's his posting record, MEG/FAQ members?  Any howlers or other 
problems we should know about?  Is he moderated?  What was the date
his request was  rejected (there were periods this year when I wasn't
a member of FAQ)?

> Now, I don't know exactly how things have been done before (history 
> lessons are welcome); I was sent an invite to join, although I never 
> personally applied. 

One history lesson coming up!
 
Tom was invited out of the clear blue because of his smoldering,
bedroom eyes and aptitude for -- 

Oh, not *that* kind of history lesson?  ;-)
  
OK.  In the past (as of Oct. 2002, at least), FAQ membership was by
invitation only.  A member (usually me) would post a message on the
FAQ list proposing potential new members.  There would usually be a
deafening silence, which I construed as an enthusiastic consensus
"Yes!" On one famous occasion, there was a vehement off-list objection
to a candidate from someone whose opinion around here is entitled to
some weight because of the work the person did/role they played, and
that single off-list objection was enough for me to scratch the
candidate from the list.

  
Now, I think I proposed Grey Wolf in this latest round of new FAQers
(Tom/Derannimer/Abigail et al.).  Either that, or I considered
proposing him and then thought better of it; I can't recall.  Either
way, the issue was that Grey Wolf has had some problems with being
difficult on-list, and the concerns were such that he did not receive
an elf invitation from MEG at the time.  He has since joined MEG, I
understand.
  
>I suggest that we get to the people who have applied first: 
>boyd_smythe (Remnant) applied and was turned down, but I don't know 
>why the group came to that decision at the time. Can anyone explain 
>this? Should we see if he's still interested and/or reconsider him?

Unless we can sort out the reason why Remnant was turned down, we
should at least evaluate him and see if he might be a good addition to
the team, IMHO.  

> Carolyn White and Kelley have sent applications in recently, and 
> Michelle's been pending for a while. So we should get to all of them 
> first. 

I may be wrong, but I think the applications of the others (Steve, et
al.) have been pending for longer.  The interest of these three
(Kelley, et al.) dates no earlier than August, IIRC.  Did Michelle
ever send any sort of off-list to any of the FAQ list members
expressing interest in our group?  It would be appropriate to have a
look at Michelle's note.

> How does this work? Do we need a majority vote, or just a 
> simple consensus, i.e. if there are no strenuous objections, should 
> we just tacitly accept the person?


I think that if there are no objections, we should accept the person.
That is how we have done it in the past; we didn't hold elections.
Also, if we decide to have elections, then we may well descend into
the Administrative Hell of sorting out quorums, writing poll
questions, keeping polls open long enough, and so forth.
  
I think we should go with consensus because, well . . . people in this
group fulfill different roles.  Our members range from lurkers up to
members who are something next to indispensable.  If someone who does
a lot of work or fulfills a special function has a strong objection to
a candidate, I always had the view that this objection was entitled to
greater weight.  To the extent the FAQ list never suffered from
in-fighting and other conflict in the past, I suspect that approach
may be one of the reasons.  So I think we should accept any candidate
unless a current member objects.  FWIW, though, if a former member
wished to return (Simon, Jen, et al.), then I'd think we'd just allow
them to return without a lot of hoo-ha, especially in light of the
turmoil that led to some of these departures.  JMHO, of course.
  
> Whatever the case, I think the least pressing item on the agenda are 
> the people who have simply been nominated internally, like Grey
>Wolf, Juan Rodriguez, Bboy_mn, and the two anonymous candidates. 

 
I think the fairest way to proceed is to handle the entire group of
candidates at once.  After all, we're trying to wrap this in a week,
so the delay for the others won't be too much.  I'd like to see a
situation where we avoid giving some candidates the "inside track" by
virtue of their relationship with existing members of the group.

> Oh, and if we're missing anyone, now's probably a good time to throw 
> in a nominee or two.


Mmmm, I think quite a lot of:
  
Tyler Hewitt
Annemehr
RSFJenny (**especially** since she volunteered to elf but was not
selected)
Anyone else who volunteered on OTC to elf but was not selected; wasn't
there one other person?
Jen Reese
Terry James
Ellejir (Elle)
If we need a tech specialist, perhaps Psczmeska (sp)
Vulgarweed
  
  
How many people do we want, anyway?

Cindy





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 24 02:31:38 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:31:38 -0400
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: (MEMB) Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bn9vi8+6jl6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c399d6$f3aeb4f0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Phyllis wrote:
 
>>>>>>>>>>>
 
I had previously suggested that we create a database into which names 
of potential FAQ-ers could be entered.  We would then set a deadline 
(perhaps the 1-week deadline Tom proposed) by which, if no one had 
stated objections to the individuals listed in the database, an 
invitation to join would be issued.  What do folks think about that?


 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Sounds good to me.  If someone added a name to the database, though,
they'd need to post a message to the list so others knew that the clock
was running and they should speak now or forever hold their peace.
 
How big do we want to be, anyway?  I guess we need to decide that.
 
Cindy
 
 
 
 


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




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct 24 14:46:18 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 14:46:18 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members (reformatted)
In-Reply-To: <bna21d+1ip7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnbdvq+7mi3@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:-
> > Oh, and if we're missing anyone, now's probably a good time to 
throw 
> > in a nominee or two.
> 
> 
> Mmmm, I think quite a lot of:
>   
> Tyler Hewitt
> Annemehr
> RSFJenny (**especially** since she volunteered to elf but was not
> selected)
> Anyone else who volunteered on OTC to elf but was not selected; 
wasn't
> there one other person?
> Jen Reese
> Terry James
> Ellejir (Elle)
> If we need a tech specialist, perhaps Psczmeska (sp)
> Vulgarweed
>   
>   
> How many people do we want, anyway?<<<

Well, can we hold our horses and decide that question first?

I personally would rather that we decide on those who we *owe* a 
response to first. To me, it would seem common decency to decide on 
outstanding membership requests. Those who are already "pending" 
won't really change the dynamics of this list too much, but a 
decision on how big FAQ should be, might.

I am not in favour of opening the group to anyone who wants. This 
could mean that we would end up having a really large group of 
people and still nothing happens.

Forgive me, but I think that the real reason that this group hasn't 
been productive in recent months, is not because of our numbers or 
because of the people on the list. It is because of OoP and the 
problems which have spilled over here. Having additional members did 
not solve the problem when they came on board earlier in the year, 
so I'm unclear as to why inviting more people now, would solve the 
problem.

What we really need is some kind of catalyst to kick start us into 
action. To me, this would be some individual or group beginning 
their FAQ and others following on a crest of enthusiam. 

Ali

Off to watch Concorde for the last time ever. Weird.





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 24 15:51:36 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:51:36 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members (reformatted)
In-Reply-To: <bnbdvq+7mi3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnbhq8+j49q@eGroups.com>

Hey!

I wrote:

> How many people do we want, anyway?
> 
Ali replied:

> Well, can we hold our horses and decide that question first?

Just to be clear . . . 

I was answering Tom's question.  He asked for other nominees, so I
gave a few.  I do agree, though, that we ought to decide a few things
about how this group is to work.

 
> I personally would rather that we decide on those who we *owe* a 
> response to first. 

Yep, seems like a plan.  Maybe we should pick a date by which this
process of deciding on the prospective members Sheryll identified will
be concluded?  Tom suggested a week, which sounds fine by me.  But a
week from *when?*  Are we certain that all FAQ members received Tom's
message?  If not, it hardly seems fair that the clock ought to be
ticking just yet.

>To me, it would seem common decency to decide on 
> outstanding membership requests. Those who are already "pending" 
> won't really change the dynamics of this list too much, but a 
> decision on how big FAQ should be, might.

Well, maybe we can multi-task and do both things at once?  

We can discuss the merits of those proposed thus far (which we are
doing) and wrap that by a date certain (a week-from-whenever), and at
the same time, we can talk about just how big we want to be and
anything else anyone wants to discuss.

 
> I am not in favour of opening the group to anyone who wants. This 
> could mean that we would end up having a really large group of 
> people and still nothing happens.

Yeah, maybe so.  I guess we have to figure out the reason nothing is
getting done.  Personally, I would attribute it to boredom/low morale;
a lack of leadership, focus and accountability; abandoning the idea of
working in groups rather than working solo; and a relatively small
number of members who have actually committed to (and followed through
on) beginning the writing of a FAQ or assisting in the writing of a
FAQ.  Unfortunately, diagnosing the problems is a lot easier than
curing them, in my experience.

 
> Forgive me, but I think that the real reason that this group hasn't 
> been productive in recent months, is not because of our numbers or 
> because of the people on the list. It is because of OoP and the 
> problems which have spilled over here. 


I'm sorry, Ali, but I'm not sure I'm following you.  Are you saying
that we haven't been productive because of OoP and OoP-related
problems that have spilled over here?

Personally, I think the reason we haven't been productive is because
we haven't made "being productive" a priority.  A few months back,
several of our members said they didn't wish to be nagged to finish
FAQs.  IIRC, the sentiment at the time was that we don't need
leadership or accountability or any of that stuff, as people will do
what they will do.  Penny's Message 2264 contains a better explanation
than my rough paraphrase above, and sums this up nicely.

So.  I think we should decide what kind of group we want this to be. 
I really don't think our current working model will yield much anytime
soon, but we may not have a whole lot of choice in the matter.


>Having additional members did 
> not solve the problem when they came on board earlier in the year, 
> so I'm unclear as to why inviting more people now, would solve the 
> problem.

Well, I dunno.  When we jumpstarted the list last October, we did it
with a large influx of new, eager members who catalogued their brains
out (Eileen, Eloise, Ali et al.).  Again this spring, we brought in
another group of new members (Phyllis, Tom, Abigail et al.) and we
were really rolling there for a while  -- including Abigail's detailed
Harry outline, which is the first time the group has come anywhere
close to progress on a Harry FP.  So I wouldn't automatically discount
the value of some new faces.  

But like I said, a lack of bodies may well not be the problem here, so
it's hard to say that it would be the solution.  It may be that we
just haven't decided that we *have* to produce anything.  I dunno. 
I'm waffling, myself.

 
> What we really need is some kind of catalyst to kick start us into 
> action. To me, this would be some individual or group beginning 
> their FAQ and others following on a crest of enthusiam. 

<waffles>

At first glance, I think this makes sense.  

But then again, poor Abigail has asked for comments on her Harry
outline again and again, and it seems to be stalled.  So the effort of
one extremely dedicated person hasn't been enough to jumpstart the
whole FAQ list so far.  Dicey uploaded something on Sirius, and it
didn't light a fire under other FAQ writers either, so far as I can tell.

It's like we're about to deliver a *huge* baby, and the contractions
are weak and ineffective.  The doctors and nurses are all milling
around, waiting for someone else to grab some forceps and *do
something!*  It's almost like we need a shot of Pitocin* to get us
from zero-to-sixty!  I don't know that a hit of Pitocin would be
sufficient to generate enough momentum to carry us through to actually
"squeezing out" any new FAQs, but it can't hurt.

Cindy -- who loves metaphors and is fresh out of Pitocin  ;-D

*Pitocin is a drug given to women in labor.  It makes their
contractions really, really strong so the baby can be born.




From susannahlm at yahoo.com  Tue Oct 28 17:36:56 2003
From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (Susannah Myers)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:36:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Vacation
In-Reply-To: <bnbdvq+7mi3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20031028173656.62844.qmail@web14306.mail.yahoo.com>

Hey, just F-Y'all's-I, I'm on vacation until around
the fifth, and am staying away from computers. Also
newspapers, TV, and, indeed, much else except my
beautiful new Terry Pratchett's. If you write to me
and don't hear back, that's why.



Derannimer

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/



From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 29 14:41:22 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:41:22 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Mod Privileges 
In-Reply-To: <bmcfi6+9n9j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnojii+rvab@eGroups.com>

Hi!

A while back, I asked about Yahoo's new limit on Mod privileges. 
Dicey confirmed that each group gets 15 mod/owner slots, and that if a
group is already over 15, then it doesn't get new slots for newcomers
until privileges are removed from enough people to make it to 15.

So far, so good.

I then asked:

> Maybe we can solve this problem by setting up one Yahoo Account that
> does have Mod privileges for this list.  All of the FAQ members who
> don't have their own Mod privileges could have the password and
>could sign in as a Mod whenever they need to do something, er . . .
>Mod-ish. This would require someone to surrender their own Mod
>privileges, though.


AND

>Has MEG found any kind of solution for this problem, or are you all
>still working on it? How did MEG manage to get that "HPfGU-elf"
>account, and can we do the same thing here?

To date, we haven't heard a clear answer from our MEG members, who may
well still be working on the problem.  There were no volunteers to
surrender their Mod powers on this list, unfortunately.

This new limit on the number of moderators does concern me, though. 
We are currently talking about bringing in some undetermined number of
enthusiastic new members, and it would be a good idea to allow them to
have Mod privileges, IMHO.  Any new members who aren't MEGs and also
haven't ever had Mod powers on some other Yahoo group would benefit
from having Mod privileges so they can learn the ropes more quickly. 
Further, if we brought in someone to replace Porphyria as she
requested, that new webmaster surely ought to have Mod privileges
here, which isn't possible unless we do something about this.

I'm going to just go ahead and assume that the "HPfGU Elf" account on
the main list is a community account where all the elves who don't
have their own Mod powers can sign on and do Mod-ish things, and I'll
further assume that this is working just dandy.  If so, and lacking
any better solution, perhaps we should do the same thing.  

Currently, the following 31 people have Mod privileges here:

Abigail
Ali
Albus The Wise 
Amanda
Charis
Cindy
Debbie
Derannimer
Dicey
Eric
Eileen
Elkins
Eloise
Gail
Heidi
Jo
Joy
Kimberly
Marina
Melanie Moore
Melody
Morgan
Paul
Penny
Pip
Pippin
Phyllis
Porphyria
Sheryll
Tabouli
Tom

The owner is still Melanie Moore, and there's no way that I know of to
transfer ownership to one of us.

Maybe the only thing that makes sense at this point is to create a
community FAQ Mod account (assuming this is possible) and then remove
privileges from enough of us to make that happen.  

Since we have no volunteers to surrender privileges, I would suggest
that we give privileges to those of us who either need them for tech
work we perform or have been reasonably active/productive on this list
(defined as posting here and working on an FP).
  
We have a number of people who have diligently performed coding work
or link check work in the past or written fabulous FPs, but since we
have no FAQs ready for coding or link checking, perhaps we can't
afford to give Mod privileges to our coders and link checkers and past
FAQ writers.  I also removed from the list those working in the house
system, leaving Mod privileges in the hands of the prefects of each house.

To get us down to 14 Mods, I'd propose that the following people
retain their privileges:

Abigail
Ali
Cindy
Debbie
Derannimer
Dicey
Eileen
Heidi
Melanie Moore
Melody
Morgan
Paul
Porphyria
Tom

Everyone else (including newcomers) could use the community account.

While I'm on the subject of membership, I think we should seriously
consider revising our policy on lurking.  We have some great folks
here who lurk (around 20), in some cases for a year or more.  This is
not problematic in and of itself.  

But we also have a list of members on the FP home page.  Our FP Owls
list says, "These are the HPfGU members who have worked long and hard
to compile great posts and edit them all into the pages you see here."

It really doesn't seem fair to credit members who drifted away ages
ago as contributing when they really aren't (individual FP authors are
credited in their FPs).  It also makes our group look a whole lot
bigger than it really is.  I mean, if any listmembers are wondering
why a working group of 42 members hasn't produced any new FPs or
significant revisions at all since November 2002, the answer might be
that we aren't anything close to a working group of 42 members.

BTW, the team list needs to be revised to reflect recent departures
and arrivals.  Volunteers?

So.  What do you think?  MEG, would this work, based on your
experience?  Does anyone have any alternative solutions?

Cindy




From editor at texas.net  Wed Oct 29 15:45:40 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:45:40 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Mod Privileges
In-Reply-To: <bnojii+rvab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnonb4+cv6j@eGroups.com>

> To get us down to 14 Mods, I'd propose that the following people
> retain their privileges:
> 
> Abigail
> Ali
> Cindy
> Debbie
> Derannimer
> Dicey
> Eileen
> Heidi
> Melanie Moore
> Melody
> Morgan
> Paul
> Porphyria
> Tom

1. I'm far from understanding the need for so many people to have Mod 
privileges on a list this size. What do we do that needs Mod 
abilities? Mod privileges are for running a list, not for doing FAQ 
work.

2. I think that there needs to be a formal MEG liaison person, who 
should always have Mod privileges. It needs to be a conscious 
inclusion; we can't assume, because so many MEGs are here, that one 
of them will always have Mod abilities. It needs to be formalized. 
That'd also help questions be answered, if there was one or two 
people duly designated to liaise.

3. It's my understanding that the wrinkles of using the common ID are 
still being worked out. Those who have been fooling with it would 
better answer this, though.

~Amanda







From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 29 16:17:12 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:17:12 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Mod Privileges
In-Reply-To: <bnonb4+cv6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnop68+nndd@eGroups.com>

Amanda asked:

> 1. I'm far from understanding the need for so many people to have
>Mod privileges on a list this size. What do we do that needs Mod 
> abilities? Mod privileges are for running a list, not for doing FAQ 
> work.

Oh, OK.  Let me explain what I mean.  

There is overlap between doing FAQ work and running the FAQ list.  You
know, things like editing tables and fooling with files.  Also, those
with Mod privileges receive mail to the FAQ list, and others do not,
which raises the chance of miscommunication.  Also, those with Mod
privileges can see what is going on with the administration of this
list (who took what action, how people are voting in polls, etc.),
whereas those without cannot.  This hardly seems equitable or efficient.

As we have made either a conscious or default decision that no one
person is designated to handle administrative matters on this list
(i.e. a "leader"), I think it fair to say that we haven't vested
administrative responsibility in one person.  We could, but we haven't.

Actually, the notion of having everyone have Mod privileges on a HPfGU
administrative list isn't novel.  I believe all MEGs had Mod
privileges on MEG since this spring, even though as you say "Mod
privileges are for running a list, not for doing [MEG] work." 
Distributing Mod privileges in some fashion just makes sure there
isn't a bottleneck when something needs to be done, as more people
have the privileges to get it done.  See?

Further, it might be a good idea to think strategically on this thing.
 Yahoo must have placed a limit on the number of Mods for a business
reason.  They chose 15.  Tomorrow, they could choose 1 or any other
number lower than 15.  It makes sense, then, to make sensible use of
our alloted number of Mod slots rather than wait for Yahoo to do
something else that curtails our flexibility.  The best defense is a
good offense, I say.

> 2. I think that there needs to be a formal MEG liaison person, who 
> should always have Mod privileges. It needs to be a conscious 
> inclusion; we can't assume, because so many MEGs are here, that one 
> of them will always have Mod abilities. It needs to be formalized. 

Oh, I agree!  I proposed back in the summer that the FAQ leader ought
to be a member of MEG, I didn't think effective communication could be
ensured any other way, and I figured that communications issues might
well blindside us otherwise.  The communication between this list and
MEG has been wanting, IMHO, and I'd love to get this resolved!

I still think that we should designate a few people (not just one) to
be the FAQ liasons to MEG, so that vacations/absences/time zones won't
create problems.  Ideally, those FAQ members would be people who have
been paying attention to the FAQ list and participating here.  Those
individuals would also try to make sure any inquiries about MEG that
are raised here receive a prompt and complete response, as well as
generally keeping this group informed about MEG matters that affect us.  

I think the current unstructured channels of communication could
surely be improved.  Indeed, the fact that Yahoo changed its policy
and limited FAQ to 15 Mods was something I learned quite by accident
from David off-list.  It would be super if the lines of communication
could be opened up a bit more, IMHO, so that this group knows what MEG
knows on things like that.


> 3. It's my understanding that the wrinkles of using the common ID
>are still being worked out. Those who have been fooling with it would 
> better answer this, though.

Excellent!  Would any of our MEG members care to put some meat on the
bones here?

Also, maybe someone should get busy talking to Yahoo about switching
ownership from Melanie to Albus?  I don't know that this has ever been
tried.  Yahoo might find the fact that she has been hard-bouncing for
over a year to be persuasive.  And should one of the MEGs do something
about Albus' hard-bouncing, or does that not matter?

Cindy




From jmmears at comcast.net  Wed Oct 29 16:53:15 2003
From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:53:15 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Mod Privileges
In-Reply-To: <bnojii+rvab@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnor9r+btcp@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:


> > Maybe we can solve this problem by setting up one Yahoo Account 
that
> > does have Mod privileges for this list.  All of the FAQ members 
who
> > don't have their own Mod privileges could have the password and
> >could sign in as a Mod whenever they need to do something, 
er . . .
> >Mod-ish. This would require someone to surrender their own Mod
> >privileges, though.
> 
 
> To date, we haven't heard a clear answer from our MEG members, who 
may
> well still be working on the problem.  There were no volunteers to
> surrender their Mod powers on this list, unfortunately.


I'd be happy to surrender my Mod powers if it will help. In fact, I 
offered to do so back in August (message 2114).  All I'm doing right 
now is trying to re-work the Weasley family FP which is badly out of 
date.  I don't know if Eileen or Charis Julia are still interested 
in working on it since I haven't heard from either of them, but I 
imagine that I don't need mod powers in order to work on the 
update.  I could be wrong about that, but I'm confident that someone 
else here can help me out if/when I run into difficulties.

Jo S.





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 29 18:47:37 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:47:37 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Mod Privileges
In-Reply-To: <bnor9r+btcp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnp209+9vj7@eGroups.com>

Hi,

I wrote:

>There were no volunteers to
>> surrender their Mod powers on this list, unfortunately.


Jo replied:


 
> I'd be happy to surrender my Mod powers if it will help. In fact, I 
> offered to do so back in August (message 2114).  

Whoops!  I stand corrected.  Sorry, Jo.  I didn't remember that.

Jo, don't change your status just yet, though.  It doesn't help until
we come up with a plan to get us down below the Yahoo minimum.

Here's an idea!  I'll set up a poll where people can express their
need (perceived or otherwise) to retain Mod privileges on this list. 
Maybe fewer than 15 people even want them.  Can't hurt to ask.

Cindy




From HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com  Wed Oct 29 18:52:02 2003
From: HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com (HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 29 Oct 2003 18:52:02 -0000
Subject: New poll for HP4GU-FAQ 
Message-ID: <1067453522.262.79214.w30@yahoogroups.com>


Enter your vote today!  A new poll has been created for the 
HP4GU-FAQ group:

Would you like to retain your Mod
privileges on the FAQ list? 

  o I want to keep my Mod privileges, please. 
  o I'm willing to surrender my Mod privileges and use a community Mod account. 
  o I have another idea  (explain on FAQ list). 
  o I'm undecided.  I guess I'll keep my Mod privileges unless someone else needs them. 


To vote, please visit the following web page:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP4GU-FAQ/surveys?id=1150145  

Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are 
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups 
web site listed above.

Thanks!

 







From elfundeb at comcast.net  Wed Oct 29 21:37:15 2003
From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb2)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 21:37:15 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members/Mod Privileges
In-Reply-To: <bnbhq8+j49q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnpbub+sc38@eGroups.com>

Responding here on productivity, prospective members, mod privileges, 
and MEG liaison.

Cindy wrote:

I guess we have to figure out the reason nothing is
> getting done.  Personally, I would attribute it to boredom/low 
morale;
> a lack of leadership, focus and accountability; abandoning the idea 
of
> working in groups rather than working solo; and a relatively small
> number of members who have actually committed to (and followed 
through
> on) beginning the writing of a FAQ or assisting in the writing of a
> FAQ.  Unfortunately, diagnosing the problems is a lot easier than
> curing them, in my experience.
> 
I think the perception that nothing is getting done is inaccurate.  
We aren't seeing the fruits of many members' work right now because 
researching and writing an FP is a long and largely solitary 
process.  This is so even if we work in teams, because the team will 
most likely simply split up the subject matter and assign it to 
various team members. However, it takes a *very* long time to put 
together a quality FP.  OOP and the posting spree that followed gave 
us a lot of new material to go through, and I don't think the HPFGU 
membership is out there tapping their feet impatiently waiting for 
new FPs.  

The fact that people aren't busy posting to the list about the FP 
process doesn't mean they're not working.  I know that a number of 
people are busy, including some who have been quiet here, like Jo.

One thing that doesn't help our productivity is allowing ourselves to 
be derailed by management issues.  There really should be very few of 
those.

A few months back,
> several of our members said they didn't wish to be nagged to finish
> FAQs.   

Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to provide periodic reports, 
if for no other reason than to dispel the notion that nobody is doing 
any work.  Perhaps we should designate someone to ask people 
periodically how they're doing. Or even better, maybe we should all 
pipe up with a status report now.  

I'll start by saying I'm working on Aurors and updating Government.  
I have culled the enchilada for relevant posts, as well as pulled up 
some relevant threads from outside the period covered by the 
enchilada, and begun to go through them.  I've been keeping my eye 
out for new relevant posts.  I've even written a whole paragraph.  

When we jumpstarted the list last October, we did it
> with a large influx of new, eager members who catalogued their 
brains
> out (Eileen, Eloise, Ali et al.).  

It has always been the case that some people take their tasks more 
seriously than others.  Last fall some people gave up cataloguing 
very quickly, and others worked very diligently.  This is a volunteer 
group, and output will inevitably lag behind initial enthusiasm. 

Again this spring, we brought in
> another group of new members (Phyllis, Tom, Abigail et al.) and we
> were really rolling there for a while  -- including Abigail's 
detailed
> Harry outline, which is the first time the group has come anywhere
> close to progress on a Harry FP.  

Abigail wrote an excellent outline and I think no one responded 
either because (i) they're not on the Harry team or (ii) we're not in 
the habit of posting just to say "great job!"  Maybe we should.  

So I wouldn't automatically discount
> the value of some new faces.  
> 
I would be hesitant to bring on new members at this time except for 
those who have already demonstrated an interest in a particular 
project, such as Kelley and Carolyn, whose project is synergistic 
with this list.  The process of deciding on new members and getting 
them on board, like other management issues, takes away from our 
primary focus on researching and writing FPs.  I also think we should 
reinvite Michelle as a courtesy to her, since she was treated so 
shabbily over the summer.


Amanda asked:
> 
> > 1. I'm far from understanding the need for so many people to have
> >Mod privileges on a list this size. What do we do that needs Mod 
> > abilities? Mod privileges are for running a list, not for doing 
FAQ 
> > work.

I agree with Amanda that Mod privileges for everyone on this list are 
not that important, and believe the silence earlier may have 
reflected this.  Moreover, the active members already have mod 
privileges.  Rather than boot out half of those people, I recommend 
that we leave the status quo for now.  It seems a waste of our time 
and energy to go through this laborious process when we could be 
working on FPs.  
> 
Cindy wrote:

> Oh, OK.  Let me explain what I mean.  
> 
> There is overlap between doing FAQ work and running the FAQ list.  
You
> know, things like editing tables and fooling with files.  

Mod privileges aren't needed for this.  The settings on this list 
have always permitted all members to create and edit tables, create 
polls, and play with files and the calendar.  The only things only 
Mods can do is to make membership changes, delete other members' 
messages and make changes to the home page.

Also, those
> with Mod privileges receive mail to the FAQ list, and others do not,
> which raises the chance of miscommunication.

This is largely a moot point.  Since this isn't a public list, it 
rarely, if ever gets owner mail.  I don't recall ever receiving any, 
and if we did, it would be the responsibility of someone with mod 
privileges to forward the communication to the list.  It's not a big 
issue.

  Also, those with Mod
> privileges can see what is going on with the administration of this
> list (who took what action, how people are voting in polls, etc.),
> whereas those without cannot.  This hardly seems equitable or 
efficient.

Everyone can see how people are voting in polls once they've voted, 
as long as the poll is not set up as anonymous.  As far as other 
action (such as admitting new members) if we agree that the group 
needs to agree on such actions (which I think we have already tacitly 
done) it doesn't matter who executes the decision.  

Basically, my view is that we're better off hanging onto as many mod 
slots as possible, so that the best course of action is to do nothing.

> As we have made either a conscious or default decision that no one
> person is designated to handle administrative matters on this list
> (i.e. a "leader"), I think it fair to say that we haven't vested
> administrative responsibility in one person.  We could, but we 
haven't.
> 
> Actually, the notion of having everyone have Mod privileges on a 
HPfGU
> administrative list isn't novel.  I believe all MEGs had Mod
> privileges on MEG since this spring, even though as you say "Mod
> privileges are for running a list, not for doing [MEG] work." 
> Distributing Mod privileges in some fashion just makes sure there
> isn't a bottleneck when something needs to be done, as more people
> have the privileges to get it done.  See?

But MEG has the same issue as this group now -- it can't give 
moderator privileges to anyone unless it reduces the number of 
existing mods below 15.  The solutions that are being worked out on 
MEG are not to get around the limit on the MEG list (where it's 
fairly irrelevant).  The MEG list has been left alone.  The work 
that's being done is so that the elves, who really need mod 
privileges to manage the main list, have access to those powers on 
the main list.  
> 
> Further, it might be a good idea to think strategically on this 
thing.
>  Yahoo must have placed a limit on the number of Mods for a business
> reason.  They chose 15.  Tomorrow, they could choose 1 or any other
> number lower than 15.  It makes sense, then, to make sensible use of
> our alloted number of Mod slots rather than wait for Yahoo to do
> something else that curtails our flexibility.  The best defense is a
> good offense, I say.

No, it makes sense to keep as many as we already have, since the 
current excess mods are grandfathered.  If they cut it to one mod, 
then we'd be no worse off than we are now unless they didn't allow 
grandfacthering of existing mods, and that would be a problem 
regardless of what we do now.
> 
> > 2. I think that there needs to be a formal MEG liaison person, 
who 
> > should always have Mod privileges. It needs to be a conscious 
> > inclusion; we can't assume, because so many MEGs are here, that 
one 
> > of them will always have Mod abilities. It needs to be 
formalized. 
> 
> Oh, I agree!  I proposed back in the summer that the FAQ leader 
ought
> to be a member of MEG, I didn't think effective communication could 
be
> ensured any other way, and I figured that communications issues 
might
> well blindside us otherwise.  The communication between this list 
and
> MEG has been wanting, IMHO, and I'd love to get this resolved!
> 
> I still think that we should designate a few people (not just one) 
to
> be the FAQ liasons to MEG, so that vacations/absences/time zones 
won't
> create problems.  

I agree that we need a MEG liaison or two, but want to point out that 
it's a two-way reporting street, and that MEG should at least be 
jointly, if not solely responsible for designating liaisons, since 
the FP project is under the jurisdiction of HPFGU.  

Ideally, those FAQ members would be people who have
> been paying attention to the FAQ list and participating here.  

I agree.  The MEGs on Cindy's Mod list are essentially the short list 
for this job (other than myself; if nominated, I will not run, and if 
elected, I will not serve). 

Those
> individuals would also try to make sure any inquiries about MEG that
> are raised here receive a prompt and complete response, as well as
> generally keeping this group informed about MEG matters that affect 
us.

I'm not sure how much reporting about MEG is necessary on this list.  
MEG isn't considering anything right now that affects the projects 
going on here.  Except that I'll put the liaison on the agenda right 
away. <g>
 
> > 3. It's my understanding that the wrinkles of using the common ID
> >are still being worked out. Those who have been fooling with it 
would 
> > better answer this, though.
> 
> Excellent!  Would any of our MEG members care to put some meat on 
the
> bones here?

It's a tech issue, I think, on which I am clueless.  But it's worth 
pointing out that an existing ID was used initially, so nobody was 
booted out of their mod status in order to create it.  
> 
> Also, maybe someone should get busy talking to Yahoo about switching
> ownership from Melanie to Albus?  I don't know that this has ever 
been
> tried.  Yahoo might find the fact that she has been hard-bouncing 
for
> over a year to be persuasive.  And should one of the MEGs do 
something
> about Albus' hard-bouncing, or does that not matter?

Yahoo has not been kind to Albus, so I would not recommend this.  
Anyway, Yahoo has not exactly been responsive to such requests, or 
Albus would not still be hard-bouncing.

Debbie





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Wed Oct 29 22:40:19 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 22:40:19 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members/Mod Privileges
In-Reply-To: <bnpbub+sc38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnpfkj+qv1d@eGroups.com>

Hey!

Debbie:

> I think the perception that nothing is getting done is inaccurate.  

Oh, that would be the best news I've had in a long time!  I guess it
is possible that folks are working hard on their individual FAQs, and
if so, I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

> Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to provide periodic reports, 

OK, I'll go next.  I recently committed to do the "Mysteries" FP, and
I'll almost certainly start from scratch.  I have done no work, and
had hoped to get some ideas before getting started.

Debbie:

>Moreover, the active members already have mod 
> privileges.  

Mmmm, we do have the issue of how to replace our webmistress.  Is
there any other way to have the new webmaster/mistress have Mod
privileges?  I ask because Porphyria was the very first person upon
whom I bestowed Mod privileges because she had so many different
things she was doing that required her to go through me.  


>The MEGs on Cindy's Mod list are essentially the short list 
> for this job (other than myself; if nominated, I will not run, and
>if elected, I will not serve). 

Well, maybe.  I see no reason why MEG would object to taking on a FAQ
list member who is *not* already a MEG, provided there was a FAQ list
member MEG did not find objectionable.  Relax, I'm not proposing
myself, OK? <g>  Kind of the way Steve has a liason-type position on
MEG (and FAQ, for that matter).  I'm sure the FAQ member could be
trusted to exercise good judgment and preserve MEG confidentiality. 
In fact, I would prefer that the FAQ liasion be someone who is not
otherwise consumed in MEG business, as they would have their first
responsibility be to FAQ and might be more likely to remember to
communicate with FAQ.

The FAQ member could simply monitor MEG and report to this group on
anything that affected this group -- there would be no need to allow
the FAQ rep to *vote* on anything on MEG if this were unwelcome,
really.  But I don't see this issue as illusory.  As it stands, there
*have* been issues that came up on or among MEGs but were not brought
to the attention of this group (scrubbing, use of FAQ to store MEG
documents).  I assume this is simply because MEG forgot about FAQ.  If
we have someone on MEG, this won't happen again, perhaps?

I'm sorry to keep raising administrative issues (well, not *that*
sorry, because that is one function of this list), and I hope it is
not preventing anyone from working hard on their own FPs.  I have been
using the "ADMIN" prefix as a courtesy to anyone who find these sorts
of discussions to be distracting, in fact.  I think folks have been
pretty reasonable about commenting on whatever is of importance to
them, and I hope that will continue.

Cindy 




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 31 01:54:24 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 01:54:24 -0000
Subject: MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnpbub+sc38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnsfch+d2gu@eGroups.com>

In order to make scrubbing easier, I'm replying to the MEMB stuff 
separately from the ADMIN stuff.

Cindy wrote:
Tom suggested a week [to evaluate new members], which sounds fine by 
me. But a week from *when?* Are we certain that all FAQ members 
received Tom's message? If not, it hardly seems fair that the clock 
ought to be ticking just yet.

Tom:
That was almost a week ago. <grin>

Okay, so this is the new list again, with some revisions. I tried to 
list other members' opinions (in brief) just to smooth along the 
process. Instead of including my own opinions here, what I'll do is 
reply to this message with my own thoughts, just so that the issue 
doesn't get convoluted.


--THE ROSTER--

-Grey Wolf is a new member of MEG. He was nominated by Phyllis.

-Steve (AKA bboy_mn) was nominated by Phyllis.

-Michelle Apostolides (AKA pinguthegreek) requested membership a 
while ago. She is a member of MEG. She has been seconded by Ali, 
Sheryll, and Phyllis. Cindy objected. Ali (and Penny) suggested that 
we go back and ask her if she's still interested.

-Juan Rodriguez is a past nominee, but we can't find any information 
on him. Phyllis has seconded him.

-boyd.t.smythe (AKA Remnant) - Apparently requested membership 
previously, although we can't seem to find any record of that, or of 
his rejection. He's been seconded by Phyllis. Cindy suggests we take 
a look at him.

-Carolyn White (AKA a_reader2003) ? requested membership ? She has 
been seconded by Abigail and Phyllis. Carolyn proposed an idea for 
archiving our collective works to MEG, and it was posted here in 
message 2284 (if you want to review it). 

-Kelley Thompson is an ex-member of MEG. She requested membership 
recently (see message 2298). She has been seconded by Ali and 
Phyllis.


On a more general note, Cindy, Phyllis, and Dicey have voted in the 
poll to allow membership to anyone who expresses an interest. Since 
Phyllis has verbally (um, or, in writing) accepted all of the 
candidates, this would add two votes in the "YES" category to each 
one.

In response to my original post, Cindy proposed a new list of 
prospective members:

-Tyler Hewitt
-Annemehr
-RSFJenny (**especially** since she volunteered to elf but was not 
selected)
-Jen Reese
-Terry James
-Ellejir (Elle)
-Psczmeska (sp) (as a tech specialist)
-Vulgarweed
-Anyone else who volunteered on OTC to elf but was not
selected; wasn't
there one other person?

In my opinion, this second list can wait for a while, since as far 
as I can see they don't know that they've been internally nominated, 
and none of them have sent in requests for membership. 

On that note, I have created a table called "Prospective Members" in 
the "Database" section of our, um, space. If anyone thinks there's a 
better way to structure the table, I'm all for it. Anyhoo, I entered 
all of Cindy's nominations, and added one of my own: Kirstini, who 
writes very well and whom I think would make an excellent addition 
to the team.

But, back to the point, the first list should be taken care of, 
pronto.

I'll now go and post my response to this post. ;-)

-Tom




From thomasmwall at yahoo.com  Fri Oct 31 02:53:29 2003
From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:53:29 -0000
Subject: MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnsfch+d2gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnsir9+40bk@eGroups.com>

This post consists of my thoughts on the proposed members, in reply 
to my last post summarizing them. 

For each member, first is the bio-bit from my last post, and 
following that are my opinions.

---

-Grey Wolf is a new member of MEG. He was nominated by Phyllis.

Tom: Grey Wolf I've tangoed with before. I agree that he has 
difficulties with English and that his posts aren't always entirely 
coherent. To be fair, he is a dedicated member of the main list, his 
research is thorough, and his grasp of canon is excellent. My 
biggest concern would be his presentation (solidifying his language 
structures), but it's not as though he'll just be putting stuff on 
the webpage on his own, right? We'll all be around to help him with 
the editing and whatever. Oh, and if MEG already invited him then I 
see no reason why we should not. Thumbs up.


-Steve (AKA bboy_mn) was nominated by Phyllis.

Tom: Steve (bboy_mn), in my opinion, is very headstrong, which can 
occasionally be annoying. 

<Tom chuckles.> Like I should talk. ;-) 

But he is also very dedicated and a consistent voice on the main 
board... plus I think he has a knack for caring deeply about the 
more, um, mundane WW issues, like Portkey theory, Triwizard 
visibility, Hogwarts enrollment, and other Wizarding universities 
that is, frankly, unparalleled. His research is also thorough (often 
brutally so in a debate), and he writes volumes on the most standard 
stuff. I think that that'd he'd be a valuable addition around here. 
He gets my thumbs up.


-Michelle Apostolides (AKA pinguthegreek) requested membership a
while ago. She is a member of MEG. She has been seconded by Ali,
Sheryll, and Phyllis. Cindy objected. Ali (and Penny) suggested that
we go back and ask her if she's still interested.

Tom: Aside from writing me a testy letter off-list once, I don't 
really know anything about Michelle. But as long as she's interested 
in what we're doing, I don't see why we should deny her request. 
That is, of course, dependent upon whether or not her request still 
stands, or if she'd like to withdraw it. 

Sheryll and Ali (since you guys seem to be in touch with Michelle), 
is there any information on this front? As far as I'm concerned, 
Michelle takes priority of consideration due to the past 
circumstances surrounding her. She gets my thumbs up.


-boyd.t.smythe (AKA Remnant) - Apparently requested membership
previously, although we can't seem to find any record of that, or of
his rejection. He's been seconded by Phyllis. Cindy suggests we take
a look at him.

Tom: Remnant's style is coherent and funny, and he posts fairly 
regularly. If he's still moderated on the main list then I'd say no 
(simply to give him more time to get used to the ropes, not as an 
outright rejection), but if he's not moderated, then he gets my vote.


-Juan Rodriguez is a past nominee, but we can't find any information
on him. Phyllis has seconded him.

Tom: I can't locate Juan's member name, and I don't know anything 
about him at all. He's not listed in any of the messages available 
in a recent search on the main list. How frequently does he post? 
When was the last time he posted? Does anyone know anything about 
him? Since I have no way of evaluating this guy so far, I say thumbs 
down for now. If anyone has any info on him that could change my 
mind, please let me know.


-Carolyn White (AKA a_reader2003) ? requested membership ? She has
been seconded by Abigail and Phyllis. Carolyn proposed an idea for
archiving our collective works to MEG, and it was posted here in
message 2284 (if you want to review it).

-Kelley Thompson is an ex-member of MEG. She requested membership
recently (see message 2298). She has been seconded by Ali and
Phyllis.

Tom: (I'm taking Carolyn and Kelley together here.) This one is 
sticky, but I'll give it a whirl, and remember ? this is based 
solely on what I've read about the two of them... it's not a 
personal thing at all.

From what I understand, Carolyn is primarily interested in joining 
this group so that she can work on her cataloguing project. Kelley 
has expressed an interest in joining for the same reasons (i.e. to 
work on Carolyn's project).

In other words, our acceptance of Carolyn and Kelley should be 
based, in some partial measure, on whether or not we want to take on 
Carolyn's project (again, message #2284).

Now, I've said this recently, but I'll reiterate here:

Carolyn's project, while an excellent idea in theory, is, in my 
opinion, not within the domain of this group. First off, accepting 
the responsibility for this project would entail a massive amount of 
administrative restructuring, starting with the fact that Carolyn 
has suggested that we enlist at least one-hundred volunteers. That's 
over twice the number of members that we currently have.

And related to that, we seem to be dragging our collective feet when 
it comes to administrative issues. I can understand why some of us 
aren't interested in that stuff, and I accept that many of us desire 
a state of unregulated soft-anarchy. Indeed, I'm okay with that and 
don't see the need, right now, for rigid controls. But (Big, Big, 
BUT here) if we accept Carolyn's project, we will absolutely *need* 
to discuss that sort of stuff. One hundred people will necessarily 
involve a larger degree of organization than we currently possess.

This is, of course, completely separate from the fact that what 
Carolyn is talking about is nothing less than a complete overhaul of 
the system the way it stands - she proposes that we completely 
rethink our FP organizational setup. 

In my opinion, I like the current deal, and I think that we should 
focus on updating the old FP's and getting the new ones out there 
soon. I think that we should decline on Carolyn's project, and refer 
the whole idea back to MEG. If they're interested in getting it 
done, then let them tackle it as they see fit.

So, this is the way I see it: 

I AM for Carolyn and Kelley *IF* they're signing on to work on FP's. 
In other words, if they're signing up to help out with the work with 
which we're currently engaged.

I AM NOT for Carolyn and Kelley if the only reason they want to be 
members is because of Carolyn's proposed project, because I do not 
think that we should be taking on any additional projects at this 
time.

---

So, to return to the beginning, it's already been a week since I 
proposed that we give ourselves a week. Granted, last time I was a 
bit vague. So how about this:

Does anyone have a problem with making our decisions on these people 
by next Friday, November 7th? At this point, I think that it's 
necessary for us to get a move on regarding these folk. We can leave 
any subsequent nominations (like Cindy's and my own ? in 
the "Proposed Members" table in the "Database" section) for a later 
time.

-Tom





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 31 09:12:26 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (Cindy C.)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:12:26 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnsfch+d2gu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bnt91q+3jrh@eGroups.com>

Hey,

Thanks for staying on top of all of this, Tom.

> -Michelle Apostolides (AKA pinguthegreek) requested membership a 
> while ago. 

Hey, guys?

Seriously, I am somewhat puzzled by this.  I pay reasonably close
attention to posts on this list, and I do not recall seeing any
request from Michelle at any time to join this list.  I remember
seeing one from Kelley and one from Carolyn, but nothing from Michelle
is coming to mind.  Now Tom is referencing Michelle's request, and I
am feeling seriously out of the loop on this issue.  Did this request
occur off-list or on MEG?  What did it *say?*  Would someone *please*
forward Michelle's original message (or anything else from her on the
subject) seeking to join us here so that we'll all have the same base
of information?  

I ask the question for a reason, actually.  As things stand, the only
rationale I recall hearing for Michelle's candidacy in August was the
she might wish to "observe* or some such.  Personally, I am not keen
on the idea of admitting folks to this list to observe, lurk or even
link-check at this point.  I really think our priority ought to be
rounding up a replacement for Porphyria, which has been pending a very
long time, and finding people who will join and actually put pen to
paper expeditiously.  If Michelle were interested back in August to
follow the difficulties here out of curiousity or something along
those lines, then this would cause me considerable concern.

Like I have said many times, this is not personal.  But what I'm
perhaps seeing is that Michelle declined repeated invitations to join
this group over the course of about two years IIRC (Penny made at
least one all-hands call for MEG volunteers and I made several on
MEG), but became interested at a rather awkward time.  I'd love to get
more information about what exactly was going on there, and I think it
quite appropriate to ask for this information given that we are
evaluating her candidacy.


Tom wrote (on Grey Wolf):

>I agree that he has difficulties with English and that his posts
>aren't always entirely coherent.  <snip evaluation>

You know, I'm leaning thumbs down here.  Like I said, I am really
hoping we'll bring in strong writers, as that is our main need
(although in the back of my mind I have the feeling that Wolf is a
techie and might make a good Webmaster for the FPs).  If he's not a
techie, then the question remains whether his writing would be up to
scratch.  I suspect it would not be, based on my experience with
Grey's writing.

Well, perhaps we could edit his stuff and improve it?  I am reluctant
to endorse anyone whose stuff we must improve before it is posted. 
Some people can be very territorial about their writing and can
bristle when their work is changed.  A few items submitted for HA were
not up to scratch, and finding a way to edit them without offending
the author was not easy -- and HA entries are much shorter than FPs.

Also, when someone uploads something for review, it really is best to
upload it as quickly as possible to keep things rolling rather than
engage in extensive 38-way editing.  We've never had much of a problem
with the quality of the writing of anyone here, and I'd like that not
to change.  

<brightly>

But if he does come here, he has now read all of my, er, candid
negative comments on MEG about his elf candidacy.  I'm thinking his
winter coat must be kinda thick by now!  :-D

Tom (on Carolyn and Kelley):

>I AM NOT for Carolyn and Kelley if the only reason they want to be
>members is because of Carolyn's proposed project, because I do not
>think that we should be taking on any additional projects at this
>time.

I agree with Tom's analysis of the issue (although I only snipped this
little bit of Tom's post).  I *really* don't want us to take on a huge
side job like this, but if they want to write FPs instead, I would
defer because I'm not really all that familiar with the posts of
either one of them.  (Is Carolyn the alchemy person who coined
Stoned!Harry, or is this someone different?  I may have more to add if
she's the Stoned!Harry originator.)

Cindy





From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct 31 11:00:57 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:00:57 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnt91q+3jrh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bntfd9+kr1@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:-

>>> Seriously, I am somewhat puzzled by this.  I pay reasonably close
 attention to posts on this list, and I do not recall seeing any
 request from Michelle at any time to join this list.  I remember
 seeing one from Kelley and one from Carolyn, but nothing from 
Michelle is coming to mind.  Now Tom is referencing Michelle's 
request, and I am feeling seriously out of the loop on this issue.  
Did this request occur off-list or on MEG? >>>

Ali:-

Cindy, as we all know, Michelle's original candidacy was unorthodox. 
I'm not sure that there is any point going over that situation 
again. What is relevant, is whether Michelle still wants to join 
FAQ - and given her treatment, she could be forgiven for thinking it 
would not be a pleasant experience for her - and what she would like 
to do when she gets here. If she doesn't want to get involved when 
she arrives, then I don't think it would be unreasonable to think 
that there would be no mutual benefit to inviting her. 

I do remember the comments about her wanting to observe. I read that 
information as meaning observing to see whether she would be able to 
contribute. I can't work in zoo-like conditions any more than you 
can. But, Michelle wants to stay involved in the admin of HPfGU, and 
if we can help her, I would like to. I believe it would be wrong to 
ascribe any ulterior motives to Michelle; she has never struck me as 
that "sort of person", and I have no reason to believe ill of her.

> Tom (on Carolyn and Kelley):
> 
> >I AM NOT for Carolyn and Kelley if the only reason they want to be
> >members is because of Carolyn's proposed project, because I do not
> >think that we should be taking on any additional projects at this
> >time.

Cindy:-
 
>>> I agree with Tom's analysis of the issue (although I only 
snipped this little bit of Tom's post).  I *really* don't want us to 
take on a huge side job like this, but if they want to write FPs 
instead, I would defer because I'm not really all that familiar with 
the posts of either one of them.  (Is Carolyn the alchemy person who 
coined Stoned!Harry, or is this someone different?  I may have more 
to add if she's the Stoned!Harry originator.)>>>

Ali:-

I'm not at all in favour of inviting 100 people onto this list to 
carry out the task that Carolyn envisages. But, I think that her 
idea carries alot of merit and it should be considered. I hated 
cataloguing, and can honestly say that I never want to do it again. 
But, we do still need it to the be done. It's great that Elkins was 
able to hi-light some of the best posts since OoP, but that's not a 
long term solution. We do still need the posts to be catalogued. If 
Carolyn is motivated on this issue, then I believe that we should at 
least give her the courtesy of discussing this *with* us - ie here. 
I don't think of this as an additional project, I think of it as 
something that should be done concurrently.

In terms of Kelley's candidacy, then it is certainly true that she 
wanted to come on board to help with Carolyn's project. It is 
equally true that Kelley is a very good techy and works incredibly 
hard for HPfGU. Even if Carolyn's project were to be rejected, I 
still feel that having Kelley here could only be advantageous.

Ali





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 31 14:22:05 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:22:05 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bntfd9+kr1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000001c39fba$5c4adf50$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi, all,
 
Ali:
 
>Cindy, as we all know, Michelle's original candidacy was unorthodox.
I'm not sure that there is any >point going over that situation again.
 
Ali, with all due respect, I have to disagree.  Yes, Michelle's cameo
appearance here was unorthodox, to be sure, but that is not her fault
and is no longer relevant, IMHO.  Her communications at the time about
*why* she'd like to join us are quite relevant.  Really, what could be
more relevant than why someone wishes to join this working group?  
 
I cannot speak for others, but even after all this time, I know
*nothing* whatever of Michelle's original candidacy because those who do
know have chosen to remain silent.  As I have said, I have considerable
concerns about Michelle and the impact her arrival might have on our
group, and the secrecy surrounding her messages expressing interest
aren't helping.  Not at all.  I think the very least this group is owed
is a disclosure of what it is exactly that led Michelle to petition
whoever she petitioned to join-and what it is that she said.  Without
that information (which surely this group is entitled to have), I am
starting to think there is a very real but hidden issue that requires
some careful consideration by the group.  
 
Put differently, this is not a case of going over a situation *again.*
We haven't gone over it *at all,* and I can think of nothing more
relevant to a candidate's petition than her . . . well, her *petition.*
I hardly think it is fair for some of us to know the full situation and
some of us to be deliberately left in the dark.  
 

 What is relevant, is whether Michelle still wants to join 
FAQ - 
 
Again, I think this is only half of the issue.  One issue is whether
Michelle is still interested; I am willing to assume she is (otherwise
we are wasting a lot of time here).  Another issue, however, is whether
there is anything this group should know about regarding what happened
that bears on whether Michelle should be admitted to this group.  
 
 

>I do remember the comments about her wanting to observe. I read that 
>information as meaning observing to see whether she would be able to 
>contribute. 
 
Again, Michelle's petition/expression of interest etc. would be the best
evidence on this, I think.  Indeed, Amanda seemed to deny that was
Michelle's motivation, but has yet to say what the motivation *was.*  I
don't think we should guess when we have the facts at our disposal in
Michelle's own words.
 
>I believe it would be wrong to 
>ascribe any ulterior motives to Michelle; she has never struck me as 
>that "sort of person", and I have no reason to believe ill of her.
 
That is reassuring, but seriously, what is the reason that Michelle's
own words are not being provided here?  Before this discussion, I didn't
ascribe any motives whatever to Michelle (indeed, the only think I knew
about was what I found objectionable - that she wished to "observe"),
but I gotta tell ya, this circuitous conversation we are having isn't
doing whole lot to put my mind at ease.
 
Ali (on Carolyn):
 
>I believe that we should at 
>least give her the courtesy of discussing this *with* us - ie here. 
>I don't think of this as an additional project, I think of it as 
>something that should be done concurrently.
 
Why don't we do this?  Let's write to Carolyn and tell her our feedback
about her proposal.  I'm unclear on what our position is at this point,
but we can surely tell Carolyn that we don't want to take the group up
to 138, and that none of us wishes to catalogue (is that correct?).
There's no reason we can't start a dialogue with her.
 
I would suggest that we tell her that if she's willing, she can start up
another HPfGU list for this part of FAQ work.  She can join here (after
all, it's not reasonable to expect her to run that other group by
peering in the window of this group from the outside).  Or if that is
too much of a commitment, and if she just wants to write FAQs, then she
could join here and do that, of course.  I'd hate to invite her with the
understanding that this group is going to invite a hundred people and
start cataloguing again.  The message  volume alone would totally swamp
us.  So let's get back to her with our current thinking, shall we?


In terms of Kelley's candidacy, then it is certainly true that she 
wanted to come on board to help with Carolyn's project. 
 
Again, if Kelley wants to write FAQs, that would be great.  If Kelley
wants to be Webmistress, that is also great.  I don't think we need
additional administrative help beyond that right now, myself.
 
Cindy


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




From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct 31 15:00:40 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:00:40 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <000001c39fba$5c4adf50$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bntteo+dpmq@eGroups.com>

Cindy wrote:-

<<Her communications at the time about *why* she'd like to join us 
are quite relevant.  Really, what could be more relevant than why 
someone wishes to join this working group?>>> 


Sorry, you misunderstand me. I think that the whole of that episode 
are perhaps better forgotten. Surely, if Michelle said to Amanda she 
wanted to observe, and Amanda invited her, then I don't know why we 
need to know in any greater detail. It is perfectly possible, that 
Michelle hadn't thought about it in any greater than that - I don't 
know, but it is a possiblity. She certainly would have had no idea 
that her candidacy would have been so problematic.

What I think is highly relevant is this section of my post:-

<<<and what she would like to do when she gets here. If she doesn't 
want to get involved when she arrives, then I don't think it would 
be unreasonable to think that there would be no mutual benefit to 
inviting her>>>

I think it far more important to ask her what she would like to 
contribute *now*, than what she thought she could contribute in 
August. 

I doubt anyone is remaining "deliberately silent". I suspect that 
most people just hope that the issue is resolved, speedily and 
fairly. I can't possibly imagine Michelle's arrival here as having 
any negative impact. I really wish you could actually meet her in 
person. I'm sure at that point any of your fears would be allayed. I 
can't think why there should be some hidden issue or something that 
people are being kept deliberately in the dark. My interpretation of 
those events was that Amanda thought she could invite people onto 
the list, Michelle asked, Michelle was invited. There really is no 
reason for any hidden agenda. Let's move on.


Cindy again:-
  
>>> Why don't we do this?  Let's write to Carolyn and tell her our 
feedback about her proposal.  I'm unclear on what our position is at 
this point, but we can surely tell Carolyn that we don't want to 
take the group up to 138, and that none of us wishes to catalogue 
(is that correct?).

 There's no reason we can't start a dialogue with her.>>>

I agree with this idea, and I can honestly say, that I have no wish 
to catalogue again unless really, really essential.
  
<<< I would suggest that we tell her that if she's willing, she can 
start up another HPfGU list for this part of FAQ work.  She can join 
here (after all, it's not reasonable to expect her to run that other 
group by peering in the window of this group from the outside). 

<snip>

  I'd hate to invite her with the understanding that this group is 
going to invite a hundred people and start cataloguing again.  The 
message  volume alone would totally swamp us.  So let's get back to 
her with our current thinking, shall we?>>>

I certainly agree that we should tell her that tat is what we are 
thinking, perhaps we need to think about the issues surrounding yet 
another HPfGU list. For instance, if we left Carolyn in charge and 
many relative newcomers with access to HPfGU records, are there any 
risks attached? I would like to resolve any potential issues before 
we start a new list.
 
>> Again, if Kelley wants to write FAQs, that would be great.  If 
Kelley wants to be Webmistress, that is also great.  I don't think 
we need additional administrative help beyond that right now, 
myself.>>>

Well, would it be acceptable to everyone if I asked her then?

Ali





From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 31 15:17:42 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 15:17:42 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnt91q+3jrh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <bntuem+ldl0@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> I ask the question for a reason, actually.  As things stand, the 
only
> rationale I recall hearing for Michelle's candidacy in August was 
the
> she might wish to "observe* or some such.

Clarification. This was your inference, based on an unrelated comment 
somewhere else. Michelle was interested in working on FAQ. The only 
person who ever said the above was you.

> Tom wrote (on Grey Wolf):
> 
> >I agree that he has difficulties with English and that his posts
> >aren't always entirely coherent.  <snip evaluation>
> 
> You know, I'm leaning thumbs down here.  Like I said, I am really
> hoping we'll bring in strong writers, as that is our main need
> (although in the back of my mind I have the feeling that Wolf is a
> techie and might make a good Webmaster for the FPs).  If he's not a
> techie, then the question remains whether his writing would be up to
> scratch.  I suspect it would not be, based on my experience with
> Grey's writing.

My experience with Grey's writing--as one who used to "keep an eye" 
on his posts on the main list--is that it is actually rather good. 
Like many educated non-native speakers, his idiomatic usage is not 
always spot-on, but his constructions are correct and his meaning is 
clear.

And on Kelley--she is not an ex-MEG. She's an ex-Moderator. She's 
still a MEG.

~Amanda





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 31 15:53:35 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 10:53:35 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bntteo+dpmq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000b01c39fc7$265440f0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Howdy!

Here's an idea that might move us forward.
 
As I am the one who is most concerned about Michelle, anyone (Amanda and
others) who had any communication with Michelle about her request(s) can
get in touch with me off-list and forward the communications.  With any
luck, Michelle's communications will be perfectly *fine* and my concerns
will be allayed.  We might well be locking horns over messages that were
appropriate and charming, after all.  But the more bobbing and weaving
that is done on this issue, the more I think something must be wrong
with this picture.
 
Alternatively, I guess I could just write to Michelle directly and ask
*her.*  Frankly, I'd prefer the first option, but if that is unworkable,
then I guess Michelle and I should just chat off-list.
 
>I can't possibly imagine Michelle's arrival here as having 
>any negative impact. I really wish you could actually meet her in 
>person. 
 
You know, whether Michelle is nice in person just isn't important here.
Lots of people have asked to participate in list administration since I
joined list administration, and we turn down nice people all the time.
What matters with any candidate is how they conduct themselves at HPfGU;
I really wouldn't push for a candidate if another group member were
concerned just because they are a friend, especially if I didn't know
the full story myself.  
 
 
>I'm sure at that point any of your fears would be allayed. 
 
Seeing Michelle's own explanation of why she wished to join us would do
a lot more for me than knowing that her friends like her, especially in
light of the unfortunate letter Tom mentioned.
 
>I 
>can't think why there should be some hidden issue or something that 
>people are being kept deliberately in the dark. 
 
Humor me, then!  Then we'd know rather than speculating.

<Kelley>

Well, would it be acceptable to everyone if I asked her then?


No, let's wait.  We're trying to wrap this in a week, and we'll want to
tell Kelley whatever we tell Carolyn and bring Kelley in on that
dialogue, right?  Also, it is not a good idea to consider a slate of
candidates and then invite them piecemeal.  The late arrivals invariably
wonder whether they were second choice.
 
Cindy




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


ADVERTISEMENT
 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=243273.4089246.5300282.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1707
544108:HM/A=1750744/R=0/SIG=129s0rq6o/*http:/servedby.advertising.com/cl
ick/site=552006/bnum=1067612466147739> Click to learn more...

 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=243273.4089246.5300282.1261774/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1750744/rand=310287106> 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
HP4GU-FAQ-unsubscribe at egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 


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




From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 31 16:03:25 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:03:25 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <000b01c39fc7$265440f0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bnu14d+6s9f@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Howdy!
> 
> Here's an idea that might move us forward.

<snip request for offlists and such>

Alternate suggestion. Let these people be contacted to see if they're 
still even interested. If they are, let's put up a poll and vote on 
them.

I nominate Abigail or one of the other more active MEGs to contact 
Kelley, Michelle, Grey Wolf, and whoever else on the potential list 
was a MEG. I call for a volunteer to contact the others.

I suggest a three-day response deadline from them, at which point if 
we haven't heard back, we assume no interest.

All this second-guessing and historical discussion is doing nothing.

~Amanda






From Ali at zymurgy.org  Fri Oct 31 17:16:19 2003
From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:16:19 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <000b01c39fc7$265440f0$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bnu5d3+chnb@eGroups.com>

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:

>>> As I am the one who is most concerned about Michelle, anyone 
(Amanda and others) who had any communication with Michelle about 
her request(s) can get in touch with me off-list and forward the 
communications.  With any luck, Michelle's communications will be 
perfectly *fine* and my concerns will be allayed.  We might well be 
locking horns over messages that were appropriate and charming, 
after all.  But the more bobbing and weaving that is done on this 
issue, the more I think something must be wrong with this picture.<<<

Ali:-

I'm sorry Cindy, I really can't think why private messages written 
several months ago, are going to be of anymore concern to you than 
to all of us. They are not our concern. What Michelle feels she is 
able to contribute *is* our concern.

Cindy:-

>>> What matters with any candidate is how they conduct themselves 
at HPfGU; I really wouldn't push for a candidate if another group 
member were concerned just because they are a friend, especially if 
I didn't know the full story myself. >>> 

Ali:-

Cindy, I have to be really honest here. I like Michelle, I've met 
her a few times, but I'm not "pushing" her because she is a friend. 
I am used to working in a professional capacity and I would hope 
that I convey this attitude on this list. My support of Michelle is 
because I want her to be treated fairly. In terms of the full story, 
you have asked us to trust you, saying that you have strong reasons 
for not wanting Michelle - which you're not prepared to share with 
us. Yet, when you are given perfectly reasonable explanations for 
why Michelle should want to join this list, you are not accepting 
them, assuming there must be some ulterior motive. This does not 
strike me as fair. 

Aside from checking with her that she was ok, I have had no 
communications with Michelle as to why she should want to join this 
list or whether she still wants to come. I have seen nothing to 
suggest that she must have any ulterior motive. 

  
  Cindy again:-

 Seeing Michelle's own explanation of why she wished to join us 
would do a lot more for me than knowing that her friends like her, 
especially in light of the unfortunate letter Tom mentioned.>>>

Please don't mistake my desire for fairness as an excuse for 
nepotism. I am sure that Michelle has made mistakes in the past. I 
am aware of problems that she has had on MEG. But, that is no reason 
for her to be treated shabbily or for an inquisition to be conducted 
on our behalves. I also believe, and have said that we should ask 
Michelle what she thinks she can contribute.
 
Cindy:- 
 
>>> Humor me, then!  Then we'd know rather than speculating.<<<

I have nothing to humour you with. I am not a close friend of 
Michelle, I don't have details of her rationale in August. As far as 
I'm concerned I don't need them. She joined because she wanted to 
observe: end of story. What I do want to do is to ensure that she is 
treated properly. I want to move forward not backwards.

 
I asked:-
 
> Well, would it be acceptable to everyone if I asked her then?
 
Cindy:-
 
>>> No, let's wait.  We're trying to wrap this in a week, and we'll 
want to tell Kelley whatever we tell Carolyn and bring Kelley in on 
that dialogue, right? <<< 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I  meant ask Kelley whether she wanted to 
write FAQs and or be a webpersonage. That would seem to be a 
separate issue to whether she comes on board with Carolyn.

Ali





From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 31 18:08:55 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:08:55 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnu5d3+chnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001a01c39fda$0c7e8150$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hi!
 
Ali, let me be clear, because I have been responding to you even though
my remarks aren't directed at you personally.  
I have been operating on the assumption that you have no additional
Michelle-related information to provide.  I accept that, I understand
that, that is fine and I appreciate your candor and openness.  I also
have been operating on the assumption (based on a long history with you)
that you are an honorable and downright delightful person with the best
of intentions who is a tremendous asset to this group.
 
I somehow get the vague feeling that Amanda, at least, does have
information that would be quite pertinent to why Michelle wants to join
this group.  Indeed, I can't help feel that there is some serious
stonewalling going on that may well be unprecedented at HPfGU.  I have
been a part of countless personnel decisions (who should be an elf, who
should join FAQ, who should become a Mod, etc.).  This is the first time
I can recall when a group member flatly refused to answer a point-blank
question (I also put the question to Amanda off-list, BTW) about the
circumstances of a candidate's petition.  Those who find it irrelevant
may look away or skip, of course.  I think the fairest thing for
everyone is for us all to have the same base of information and decide
whether any problems are significant or not.  As it stands, that
decision is being made unilaterally by one member, and under the
peculiar circumstances here, that is troublesome to me.  
 
Frankly, I do believe that our actual experience with a candidate - what
*they* have said and done -- and how they handle themselves is of far
more importance than what they say they *will* do.  *Both* are useful
pieces of information, I think.  If we really feel no need to evaluate
candidates - all candidates - in this way because the only thing that
matters is what they say they will do, then I don't understand why we
don't just make this an open list.  I think we evaluate people for a
reason - to make sure we're all comfortable with the decision.  
 
That is why I ask.  Anyone else who doesn't care doesn't have to care.
I find the stonewalling to be bothersome and not at all helpful, but
absent veritaserum, I can't do anything more than ask in good faith what
this issue is all about and hope my colleague answers the question.
 
Really.  I want to be fair with Michelle.  I also want to be fair to
every member of this group.  I would ask the very same questions
regardless of the identity of the prospective candidates.  If the tables
were turned, I'd have answered the question back in August.  What's
going on now is surely unfair to whoever might be interested in knowing
why Michelle sought to join us- even if it is only one FAQ member --
when the better course of action is to discuss the thing and make a
decision.
 
Cindy


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




From editor at texas.net  Fri Oct 31 18:22:32 2003
From: editor at texas.net (Amanda)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 18:22:32 -0000
Subject: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <001a01c39fda$0c7e8150$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>
Message-ID: <bnu998+gpjk@eGroups.com>

Cindy:

> I somehow get the vague feeling that Amanda, at least, does have
> information that would be quite pertinent to why Michelle wants to 
join
> this group.

Yes. I do. She's interested in helping with FAQs. I can't think why I 
haven't said that before.

Cindy:
  Indeed, I can't help feel that there is some serious
> stonewalling going on that may well be unprecedented at HPfGU.  I 
have
> been a part of countless personnel decisions (who should be an elf, 
who
> should join FAQ, who should become a Mod, etc.).  This is the first 
time
> I can recall when a group member flatly refused to answer a point-
blank
> question (I also put the question to Amanda off-list, BTW) about the
> circumstances of a candidate's petition.

I haven't checked my home email in a week, at least; no time, many 
people ill. The flu sucks. Emergency room trips suck.

I am not stonewalling anyone. I am not hiding anything. At this 
point, I'm getting the impression that even if I posted every word of 
every YM or post I made with Michelle, you would still think I'm 
hiding some dark nefarious secret.

Cindy, I don't have *time* to have dark nefarious secrets. Plotting 
and intrigue take energy and resources I don't have. Defrauding you 
is not something high on my agenda at the moment. 

If I had anything I felt truly needed clarifying or discussion, I'd 
have said it. I don't. See "Michelle was interested in FAQ and wanted 
to help" above.

I had considered that your Michelle-reservations were that you didn't 
want another MEG on the list. But now it seems your Michelle-
reservations are based on some perception that I'm concealing some 
vital and damning information. 

Let's make a deal. If you say it's not that she's a MEG, I'll believe 
you. And when I say I'm not stonewalling or hiding anything, you 
believe me. *Now* can we get on with things? Jeez.

~EvilCriminalMastermind!Amanda






From cindysphynx at comcast.net  Fri Oct 31 18:39:57 2003
From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx)
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:39:57 -0500
Subject: [HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
In-Reply-To: <bnu998+gpjk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001f01c39fde$6246d070$0202a8c0@home7u2lvwxmqw>

Hey!
 
Amanda:
 
>>>>>>>>> If you say it's not that she's a MEG, I'll believe 
you. 
 
>>>>>>>>>>>
 
Oh, is *that* what people think?  That I have issues with Michelle
because she's a *MEG?*
 
<chuckle>
 
Nah.  Kelley is a MEG, and MEG I've had conflict with before, and I'm
not opposing Kelley  Same for Maria..  Heck, this place is rife with
MEGs.  No, that isn't it at all.
 
But it looks like I have my answer after all.  In August, Michelle said
to Amanda, "I'm interested in helping with FAQs!" and nothing more.  I
am more than willing to take Amanda's word that nothing else transpired
concerning Michelle's request, of course.  
 
 
Cindy


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