ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members/Mod Privileges

[elfundeb2]

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