[HP4GU-FAQ] Re: ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members
cindysphynx
cindysphynx at comcast.net
Fri Oct 31 14:22:05 UTC 2003
Hi, all,
Ali:
>Cindy, as we all know, Michelle's original candidacy was unorthodox.
I'm not sure that there is any >point going over that situation again.
Ali, with all due respect, I have to disagree. Yes, Michelle's cameo
appearance here was unorthodox, to be sure, but that is not her fault
and is no longer relevant, IMHO. Her communications at the time about
*why* she'd like to join us are quite relevant. Really, what could be
more relevant than why someone wishes to join this working group?
I cannot speak for others, but even after all this time, I know
*nothing* whatever of Michelle's original candidacy because those who do
know have chosen to remain silent. As I have said, I have considerable
concerns about Michelle and the impact her arrival might have on our
group, and the secrecy surrounding her messages expressing interest
aren't helping. Not at all. I think the very least this group is owed
is a disclosure of what it is exactly that led Michelle to petition
whoever she petitioned to join-and what it is that she said. Without
that information (which surely this group is entitled to have), I am
starting to think there is a very real but hidden issue that requires
some careful consideration by the group.
Put differently, this is not a case of going over a situation *again.*
We haven't gone over it *at all,* and I can think of nothing more
relevant to a candidate's petition than her . . . well, her *petition.*
I hardly think it is fair for some of us to know the full situation and
some of us to be deliberately left in the dark.
What is relevant, is whether Michelle still wants to join
FAQ -
Again, I think this is only half of the issue. One issue is whether
Michelle is still interested; I am willing to assume she is (otherwise
we are wasting a lot of time here). Another issue, however, is whether
there is anything this group should know about regarding what happened
that bears on whether Michelle should be admitted to this group.
>I do remember the comments about her wanting to observe. I read that
>information as meaning observing to see whether she would be able to
>contribute.
Again, Michelle's petition/expression of interest etc. would be the best
evidence on this, I think. Indeed, Amanda seemed to deny that was
Michelle's motivation, but has yet to say what the motivation *was.* I
don't think we should guess when we have the facts at our disposal in
Michelle's own words.
>I believe it would be wrong to
>ascribe any ulterior motives to Michelle; she has never struck me as
>that "sort of person", and I have no reason to believe ill of her.
That is reassuring, but seriously, what is the reason that Michelle's
own words are not being provided here? Before this discussion, I didn't
ascribe any motives whatever to Michelle (indeed, the only think I knew
about was what I found objectionable - that she wished to "observe"),
but I gotta tell ya, this circuitous conversation we are having isn't
doing whole lot to put my mind at ease.
Ali (on Carolyn):
>I believe that we should at
>least give her the courtesy of discussing this *with* us - ie here.
>I don't think of this as an additional project, I think of it as
>something that should be done concurrently.
Why don't we do this? Let's write to Carolyn and tell her our feedback
about her proposal. I'm unclear on what our position is at this point,
but we can surely tell Carolyn that we don't want to take the group up
to 138, and that none of us wishes to catalogue (is that correct?).
There's no reason we can't start a dialogue with her.
I would suggest that we tell her that if she's willing, she can start up
another HPfGU list for this part of FAQ work. She can join here (after
all, it's not reasonable to expect her to run that other group by
peering in the window of this group from the outside). Or if that is
too much of a commitment, and if she just wants to write FAQs, then she
could join here and do that, of course. I'd hate to invite her with the
understanding that this group is going to invite a hundred people and
start cataloguing again. The message volume alone would totally swamp
us. So let's get back to her with our current thinking, shall we?
In terms of Kelley's candidacy, then it is certainly true that she
wanted to come on board to help with Carolyn's project.
Again, if Kelley wants to write FAQs, that would be great. If Kelley
wants to be Webmistress, that is also great. I don't think we need
additional administrative help beyond that right now, myself.
Cindy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
More information about the HP4GU-FAQ
archive