ADMIN: Mod Privileges

[Cindy C.]

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