General Policy Stuff

[Tom Wall]

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