How About Progress Reports? & Harry FP, Again

[Cindy C.]

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"