ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members

[Ali]

Cindy wrote:-

<<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?>>> 


Sorry, you misunderstand me. I think that the whole of that episode 
are perhaps better forgotten. Surely, if Michelle said to Amanda she 
wanted to observe, and Amanda invited her, then I don't know why we 
need to know in any greater detail. It is perfectly possible, that 
Michelle hadn't thought about it in any greater than that - I don't 
know, but it is a possiblity. She certainly would have had no idea 
that her candidacy would have been so problematic.

What I think is highly relevant is this section of my post:-

<<<and what she would like to do when she gets here. If she doesn't 
want to get involved when she arrives, then I don't think it would 
be unreasonable to think that there would be no mutual benefit to 
inviting her>>>

I think it far more important to ask her what she would like to 
contribute *now*, than what she thought she could contribute in 
August. 

I doubt anyone is remaining "deliberately silent". I suspect that 
most people just hope that the issue is resolved, speedily and 
fairly. I can't possibly imagine Michelle's arrival here as having 
any negative impact. I really wish you could actually meet her in 
person. I'm sure at that point any of your fears would be allayed. I 
can't think why there should be some hidden issue or something that 
people are being kept deliberately in the dark. My interpretation of 
those events was that Amanda thought she could invite people onto 
the list, Michelle asked, Michelle was invited. There really is no 
reason for any hidden agenda. Let's move on.


Cindy again:-
  
>>> 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 agree with this idea, and I can honestly say, that I have no wish 
to catalogue again unless really, really essential.
  
<<< 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). 

<snip>

  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?>>>

I certainly agree that we should tell her that tat is what we are 
thinking, perhaps we need to think about the issues surrounding yet 
another HPfGU list. For instance, if we left Carolyn in charge and 
many relative newcomers with access to HPfGU records, are there any 
risks attached? I would like to resolve any potential issues before 
we start a new list.
 
>> 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.>>>

Well, would it be acceptable to everyone if I asked her then?

Ali