MEMB: Prospective Members

[Tom Wall]

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