ADMIN/MEMB: Prospective Members

[Ali]

--- In HP4GU-FAQ at yahoogroups.com, "cindysphynx" <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:

>>> As I am the one who is most concerned about Michelle, anyone 
(Amanda and others) who had any communication with Michelle about 
her request(s) can get in touch with me off-list and forward the 
communications.  With any luck, Michelle's communications will be 
perfectly *fine* and my concerns will be allayed.  We might well be 
locking horns over messages that were appropriate and charming, 
after all.  But the more bobbing and weaving that is done on this 
issue, the more I think something must be wrong with this picture.<<<

Ali:-

I'm sorry Cindy, I really can't think why private messages written 
several months ago, are going to be of anymore concern to you than 
to all of us. They are not our concern. What Michelle feels she is 
able to contribute *is* our concern.

Cindy:-

>>> What matters with any candidate is how they conduct themselves 
at HPfGU; I really wouldn't push for a candidate if another group 
member were concerned just because they are a friend, especially if 
I didn't know the full story myself. >>> 

Ali:-

Cindy, I have to be really honest here. I like Michelle, I've met 
her a few times, but I'm not "pushing" her because she is a friend. 
I am used to working in a professional capacity and I would hope 
that I convey this attitude on this list. My support of Michelle is 
because I want her to be treated fairly. In terms of the full story, 
you have asked us to trust you, saying that you have strong reasons 
for not wanting Michelle - which you're not prepared to share with 
us. Yet, when you are given perfectly reasonable explanations for 
why Michelle should want to join this list, you are not accepting 
them, assuming there must be some ulterior motive. This does not 
strike me as fair. 

Aside from checking with her that she was ok, I have had no 
communications with Michelle as to why she should want to join this 
list or whether she still wants to come. I have seen nothing to 
suggest that she must have any ulterior motive. 

  
  Cindy again:-

 Seeing Michelle's own explanation of why she wished to join us 
would do a lot more for me than knowing that her friends like her, 
especially in light of the unfortunate letter Tom mentioned.>>>

Please don't mistake my desire for fairness as an excuse for 
nepotism. I am sure that Michelle has made mistakes in the past. I 
am aware of problems that she has had on MEG. But, that is no reason 
for her to be treated shabbily or for an inquisition to be conducted 
on our behalves. I also believe, and have said that we should ask 
Michelle what she thinks she can contribute.
 
Cindy:- 
 
>>> Humor me, then!  Then we'd know rather than speculating.<<<

I have nothing to humour you with. I am not a close friend of 
Michelle, I don't have details of her rationale in August. As far as 
I'm concerned I don't need them. She joined because she wanted to 
observe: end of story. What I do want to do is to ensure that she is 
treated properly. I want to move forward not backwards.

 
I asked:-
 
> Well, would it be acceptable to everyone if I asked her then?
 
Cindy:-
 
>>> No, let's wait.  We're trying to wrap this in a week, and we'll 
want to tell Kelley whatever we tell Carolyn and bring Kelley in on 
that dialogue, right? <<< 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I  meant ask Kelley whether she wanted to 
write FAQs and or be a webpersonage. That would seem to be a 
separate issue to whether she comes on board with Carolyn.

Ali