Some Ideas on Getting FAQ Up and Running

[Thomas Wall]

Hey everyone,

I know that over a week ago I asked for a "day or two"
to write up a response to Debbie's post of suggestions
for getting FAQ back on target. Er, thanks very much
for being patient with me. ;-)

For the record, Ive been extraordinarily busy in RL
for the past two weeks; additionally, Ive tried to
dole out my limited online time to the answering of
personal e-mails, which I felt took a higher priority.
Of course, Im still *very* behind on those, and still
owe some responses. So, I havent  until now - had
enough time to convert my conglomeration of print-outs
and notes into a post worthy of, uh, posting. However,
I so hope that by the end of this letter you all will
agree that the additional time it's taken me to put it
together was worth it. It turns out, also, that I have
inadvertently held up the progress on FAQ through my
delay, and I am also sorry for that, as I recognize
the need to get FAQ up and running again.

Secondly, although I'm posting this to FAQ, Im also
mailing it to HpforGrownUps-owner in order to save the
liaison a bit of time, and also because I think that
this letter will necessarily have to be discussed by
MEG anyways. I think that one way or the other
decisions will have to be made regarding the contents
here. As the letter progresses onward, I think that my
reasons for doing this will become clear. Primarily,
Im writing this to address some of the issues that I
believe require real change in order for FAQ to move
forward and be productive.

So, first off, I want to applaud the ideas in the post
that Debbie sent on Abigails behalf, and also the
group of people who put it together. It may surprise
some when I say that I actually agreed with large
swaths of it, though it probably wont surprise anyone
when I say that I disagreed with a few points as well.
Generally, though, it got me thinking about what I
have perceived to be both the strengths and weaknesses
of the FAQ culture since I joined this summer, and
then it got me thinking about how we can play to those
strengths and smooth some of our problem areas away.

Disclaimer here: Im fairly confident that at least
*some* of what I have to say here may annoy one or
more people, although I am trying diligently to be as
fair and sensitive as I can. However, I do ardently
believe that it is by and large a very balanced
assessment of the situation here, and that the
suggestions for improvement are - overall - the best
course of action for FAQ at the present. Please
understand that ultimately, what I'm trying to do is
get us to that "coherent plan of action" that was
suggested. I just happen to feel that the plan needs
more specifics. Consider this post a presentation of
some specifics accompanied by suggestions for
implementation.

I want to start with what is probably the first
contentious issue that I brought up this summer,
notably that of autonomy. 

You have to understand that when I first joined FAQ, I
had no idea *how* many past and present members of MEG
were present on this list. I recognized a lot of the
names, sure, but that recognition sprung primarily
from the knowledge that many of you guys were
veterans. I didnt realize just how many veterans
were also Administrators. Of course, I never (until
fairly recently) bothered to do an actual breakdown,
and that was my mistake. As yall probably know, Im
notorious for foot-in-mouth responses, and when I
first brought up the idea of autonomy back in June or
July, it was without the knowledge that I was a
addressing a number of people who either had been,
were presently, or were going to be on MEG.
Furthermore, given the number of relatively vague
statements to the effect that MEG wanted FAQ to be by
and large a self-governing list, I was under the
impression that FAQ mostly comprised a separate group
of people. Looking back, I can see that this was an
oversight on my part.

Look at it this way: I thought (particularly after
reading OoP) that the relationship between MEG and FAQ
could best be analogized by the relationship between
the Ministry and Hogwarts in the books. Namely, I
believed that MEGs job was primarily to address the
administration and governance aspects of HPfGU
operations, whereas FAQ could better be described as
either the press, or a school. In any case, I
believed that the two were mostly independent of each
other and that this meant that FAQ was free to
determine its own fate and policies for itself (and
that that was the preferable course of action), and
that therefore I was free to propose what I did.

It was this impression that fueled a great deal of my
efforts  which I now recognize as inherently flawed,
given the symbiotic relationship that the two
institutions share - to separate MEG and FAQ, as I
believed that interference from MEG was in no small
part connected to the lack of direction and order on
FAQ (which had existed for months even before I
joined). I still partially do feel that way, but now
am much more prone to accept that there was a great
deal of frustration and misunderstanding permeating
the atmosphere here, and that most of what happened
was the result of that vibe. Back to my point,
however, subsequent attempts to discuss policy for FAQ
nearly across the board resulted in calls to either
defer to MEG, or else to adopt a policy that MEG
already had in place. Further complicating the issue
was the fact that in some cases, there was distinct
leeway afforded so that FAQ could delineate its own
policies and procedures.

Essentially, I believe it is an understatement to
point out that the relationship between the two lists
was unclear, and that further attempts to pursue the
subject were frustratingly mishandled by both sides.
On the one hand, I concede that I was too fervent and
insensitive in some of my posts. On the other, I do
not feel as though anyone was actually hearing what I
had to say. Maybe many people did, but it didn't feel
that way.

Before I go on, I should throw two of my *own* caveats
in here. (For those who are uninterested in a brief
explanation of some of my idiosyncrasies, feel free to
skip the next two paragraphs.) ;-)

First of all, many of you probably realize by now that
I (in an unabashedly Percy-esque fashion) just *love*
rules and order. I adore them. I learn rules quickly,
and then assiduously abide by them. When peeved, I
typically figure out what the loopholes and weaknesses
in the rules are, and proceed to engage in pedantic
discussions over what is and what is not permissible
according to the rules as they stand, or at least,
as I understand them. I do this not only with rules,
but also very much with premises that involve canon
and theories as well.

Additionally, I am the kind of guy who *has* to tidy
up my workspace before beginning any project, as the
mere existence of alternative and unfinished clean-up
stuff is enough to sidetrack me indefinitely until I
have a clean and organized environment in which I can
focus on my work. So, from my perspective (although
many may understandably disagree) what I was trying to
accomplish during the summer and early fall was *not*
to make everyones life more difficult, nor to mire
yall down in an inexhaustible series of complaints,
questions and suggestions (although I do see how this
impression could have been formed). Rather, my actions
were an effort to adequately define my working
relationship so that I could get to work. 

Figuratively, all of that was a miserably failed
attempt on my part to tidy up my workspace. I hope 
with a few lessons tucked under my belt - that I have
a little more success this time round. ;-)

In that light, it may or may not surprise you guys
when I tell you that after careful consideration of
the present and possible problems that I perceive on
FAQ, I truly feel that the only way to solve - and in
the case of the possible problems, to circumvent -
them is to start out by making it *as clear as
possible* (especially for any new volunteers) that FAQ
is firmly and unquestionably under the direct
supervision and authority of MEG.

IMHO, one of the pre-conditions for the genesis of the
latest round of unpleasantness was the idea that
there was maneuvering room for myself (and others)
that would enable us to pitch in and help define our
own policies and procedures. This, I believe, is a
topic onto which many  not all, but certainly many 
new FAQ volunteers (who may quite likely be not sick
of policy discussions and also simultaneously eager
to help out in any way that they can) will naturally
jump. For instance, *this* is why I tried to bring up
autonomy in the first place; its also the reason I
tried to jumpstart the latest  and ultimately failed
- round of discussion on new members. Its cause I
wanted to help.

Having learned from that experience, I honestly feel
that as long as such opportunities exist for FAQ to
define its own policies, and as long as the policies
and relationship remain vaguely defined, I will not be
the only person willing or able to make use of that
vagueness. 

If, hypothetically speaking, we were to announce
tomorrow that FAQ would be taking applications for new
members on a volunteer basis, I feel confident that
within several weeks *someone* would notice a
discrepancy and point it out. Thats all itd take for
a few others to sign up on the topic and then wed be
in a needless and protracted policy discussion all
over again. In short, I feel like a large part of the
unpleasantness (for which Im not at all interested in
assigning blame onto anyone) was realistically due to
the amount of leeway, coupled with a whole lot of
policies which were indistinct.

I think that one of the best things we can do right
now is to eliminate as much of this vagueness before
anyone comes in and catches on and we end up going in
circles. Therefore, I would like to begin by proposing
that any and all operational procedures and rules that
MEG feels is relevant to FAQ first be defined here,
and then implemented here.

By this, Im referring to stuff like (but not limited
to): security procedures, the number of moderators
(who should *all* be elves without exception, IMHO, to
reinforce the fact that this is an HPfGU project), the
leadership (and/or the need for a liaison) on FAQ,
policies on discussing and voting on new members, and
scrubbing. My take on this is simple: if MEG doesnt
scrub, then neither should FAQ. If MEG has determined
the optimal number of moderators, then FAQ should have
the same number. And so on. 

Let me be direct: essentially, I am now of the mind
that the *only* issues to which the general membership
of FAQ should have any input are the writing of FP
essays, team assignments, and *perhaps* voting on new
members (I'm still kind of the mindset that we should
vote on new members instead of automatically accepting
everyone that applies, but opinion isn't steadfast or
anything). Frankly, I dont see the need for any other
issue or policy to be up for grabs or open to
discussion around here. Were here to write FP essays.
*Thats* the priority. So lets make sure that - as a
matter of precaution and prudence - theres nothing
*else* outstanding that people could talk about.

Anyways, after this review, MEG should decide which
rules would best be applied here, and then should
notify FAQ of the decisions, accompanying the
additional rules with explanations for anything that
may not be clear. My opinion is this: if it works on
MEG, then it should be implemented here.

Now, once that is done, the new rules need to be
recorded in such a way as to make them conveniently
available to all members at any time. 

Therefore, Id further this by asking that all of this
information be incorporated into the original Policy
Statement (in message #2447, including answers to
questions in messages #2497, #2498, and the additional
statement of intent in #2499) on which I have
previously requested clarification. And once that
revision is complete, I believe that the Policy
Statement should be saved in the Files section of
the FAQ list so that anyone can refer to it at any
time (instead of having to flip backwards through old
threads in order to find the original post and
subsequent thread).

For the record, I did not request that the policy
statement be revised in order to create make work,
as Abigail has  understandably, I think, given the
prior tension in the air - suggested; rather, it was 
and still is - an effort to tidy up my work space, to
make it clear for myself and others (and now
*especially* any for prospective volunteers that may
sign up in the near future) exactly what the
conditions are under which well be working. 

Im not, though, trying to make more work for yall,
and I know that a clear policy statement could
potentially take some time and effort. In that light,
I would be glad to help with this task (even though I
realize that its not really my place to pen official
policies), as I already have a draft of the policy
statement with all sorts of arrows and scribbled notes
which might be of use, if  that is - you guys think
that this is both an acceptable and worthwhile
proposition.

I cant stress how central I think this will be if
were going to generally open up FAQ to volunteers. I
believe that a clear and defined policy and rules are
absolutely *indispensable* if were going to proceed
along this route, as many of the potential volunteers
will likely possess some  not all, Im sure, but
certainly some - of the same feelings that I and
others experienced this summer. Namely, I'm betting
that theyll probably want to learn the rules so that
they can abide by them (and not look stupid), theyll
probably be full of vigor and ready to help out, and
also that they might want to discuss just about
anything that looks like its inviting their opinion.
And when theres a lack of clarity coupled with a
determination to reach clarity, questions and debate
will naturally be the result. And those things arent
always helpful, particularly not if the purpose is to
be writing FP essays and not discussing and
formulating FP policies.

Guys, if the rules arent clear for everyone *before*
the new people start coming in, I *guarantee* yall
that at some point nitpicking and policy discussion
will emerge once more (especially if certain other
aspects of the FAQ culture remain unaddressed), and
that this will sidetrack the project all over again.
Given the fact that FAQ is now  and has been for over
a year - *extraordinarily* behind in its production, I
do not think that we can afford to leave any sort of
loopholes and uncertainty in our culture, lest we
again get derailed.

Therefore, I believe that it should be very clear to
anyone who joins FAQ that, for example, this is not
the place to discuss MEG history, policy, actions, or
past conflicts, nor is it the place to express general
complaints with List Admin or other members of HPfGU.
A proper policy statement would probably also suggest
alternatives to this, such as private e-mails, e-mails
to owner, or even the Feedback list (if the topic is
considered appropriate). It should also be clear that
this is not a staging ground for getting onto List
Administration. 

Most significantly, it should be concretely obvious to
everyone that everyday netiquette rules *still* apply
and will *still* result in Howlers or Moderation if
egregious violations occur and/or continue. On this
note, I would encourage the elves with Moderator
privileges (again, I think that realistically there is
no reason for anyone *other* than elves to possess Mod
privileges, and am more than happy to relinquish my
own as I dont need and don't really use them) to
exercise these powers if things *ever* start to get
out of hand again. I concede  with a side dish of
great hope - that stuff may never reach that point.
But I also believe that we should prepare for it as
though it were an eventuality. Just in case.

Finally, it should be clear that its not acceptable
to join FAQ unless you intend in some way  even if
that way is limited  to contribute to the effort
here. Excessive lurking on the part of too many
members of FAQ, IMHO, is not only unhelpful to our
progress, but actually dispiriting for those who feel
like they're doing a lot of work and not getting any
help. This is something I will get to later on.

Now, is all of this in contradiction with my many past
proposals? I can see how it would be taken that way,
although I feel that it is not. Why am I proposing
this now? What are my motivations? Thats simple.

Given the events since this summer, I feel that it is
only prudent that we make an effort to straighten up
the FAQ situation in an honest attempt to ensure that
those types of debates do not *ever* occur again, as
they are clearly detrimental to FAQs culture, its
ability to produce new work, and most significantly,
the *morale of its members,* particularly members who
are not on List Admin. I.e. no one should have to
undergo the series of Admin messages from this fall
that prompted all hell to break loose. That should
never have to happen again.

Although this may seem pessimistic (and I do not
consider myself a pessimistic person), I believe that
it is *essential* for us to prepare ourselves for the
eventuality that something like these past events
might recur. Therefore, we must assure ourselves,
before admitting anyone new, that we have done
everything within our power to circumvent any possible
future ugliness.

Finally, (please forgive the non-sequitur here; smooth
segues arent exactly my forte) I have two briefer
points to make regarding some other stuff thats been
on my mind lately.

First, the Topical Essays link on hpfgu.org.uk is
still pointing to an expired file at the Lexicon. We
are currently located at hpfgu.org.uk/faq, right?
Could someone make sure that the link is fixed?

Secondly, I read through Debbies recent FAQ
Guidelines file, and it is *excellent.* Nice work,
Debbie... Im amazed at how much information you
managed to cram into a three page document. ;-) Id
like to talk a little more, though, about one piece of
it, which we already brought up on Feedback, and that
is how we should best go about citing members work.

Debbie wrote (in the Guidelines file):
[Avoid direct quotes and using members full names.]

Tom again:
I know that we touched on this on Feedback, and so I
know why you threw this in there. But part of me still
really, *really* likes the way that the Snape FP is
written. I'd be sad to see it changed in order to
remove names and citations because personally, I think
its the best one we have, although no insult is
intended for the authors of the other essays.

So, hoping that we might find a way to *keep* that
style intact while also abiding by the rules and
general courtesy, I drafted a Request for Use letter
that we might possibly employ (with minimal additional
effort required) in order to get permission from
members to use their work and/or names in FP essays. I
figure it like this:

By and large, most people probably wont take offense
at the inclusion of their work on an FP essay.
Frankly, I think that most people would be *thrilled*
to have their stuff included. And from a logistical
standpoint, we do not *have* to actually cite anyones
name or parts of the post in the actual essay.
However, I do think that the inclusion of names and
occasional citations does make the essay sound more
personal, and also allows for more in-depth writing.

So, what to do? What if we wrote our hypothetical FP
essay the way we normally would (using names and
citations if we so desire) and then, when the FP is
done, we send out the Request for Use letter to
anyone whose work/name wed like to directly cite in
the FP essay? This way, we can *get* actual permission
to use the work and/or the name of the individual. If
anyone declines, then that person's work can simply be
converted into an anonymously referenced post number.
If a member doesnt respond at all, we can take it as
a refusal and do the same.

Anyways, I wrote up a draft of a letter along these
lines a few weeks ago, and its pasted in at the
bottom of this post. My idea is that if we save this
letter (or a better version of one, as I'm not exactly
skilled in writing PR-type letters) in the Files
section of the FAQ list, then it shouldnt be a hassle
at all to send it out once we have some written FP
essays. Just plug in the variables and hit send. ;-)
It's an extra step, yes, but one worth taking if we
want to preserve the specific style and character of
the FP site.

Now, all of that was pretty easy. ;-) 

Again, it probably wont surprise you guys when I say
that I - yes, even still - have a *ton* of things I
want to talk about. However, as I wrote (and wrote,
and wrote), I realized that bringing everything up in
*one* letter would likely result in a tedious read for
the recipients, not to mention that too much of Tom
opining and waxing philosophical all at once and might
actually be *counterproductive* to my aim. ;-)

So, Ive split everything up into this post and
another which hasnt been finished yet. I hope to post
it later on, after weve had a chance to talk over the
stuff I proposed in here, but figure that it's better
to take things one step at a time.

So, thats about it from me,
-Tom


PS: REQUEST FOR USE LETTER
(Note: variables are preceded by an asterisk.)

Dear *So-and-so,

Hi there! Im *So-and-so, and Im contacting you on
behalf of the HPforGrownUps Fantastic Posts and Where
to Find Them Team. 

As you know, the Fantastic Post Owls are responsible
for compiling and writing the Fantastic Posts essays
(located at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq), which are
basically topical summaries of the very best that
HPfGU has to offer on the many dimensions of the Harry
Potter series, as well as on the theories written and
discussed by HPfGUs members.

Well, Im excited to let you know that were nearly
finished with a new Fantastic Posts essay on
*Such-and-such-a-topic! We think that your post
*#12345 is excellent; it's exactly the kind of quality
and thoughtful material that wed like to feature on
the Fantastic Posts website, which is one of the ways
that we promote HPfGU to the general public.

The reason Im sending you this letter is to request
your permission to include your name (or pseudonym),
and possibly even a direct citation from your work on
the public website. We understand that all members
retain copyright to their work, and we completely
respect your right to control the use of your writing.

If you feel for any reason as though you dont want
your name or work to appear on the website, then we
completely understand. Just reply to this e-mail and
tell us what youd prefer we not include on the
website (your name, a citation, anything at all). In
that case, well simply refer to your post without
referencing you by name or including any direct
quotes. If you dont reply to this e-mail, then well
assume that you dont want to be mentioned
specifically, and your name (along with any direct
quotes from your post) will be omitted from the essay.


We will, however, still provide the number of your
post (but not the name or a direct quote), so that
other members of HPfGU can take a look at your
thoughts.

Thanks for your contributions to HPfGU, and keep up
the great work!

Regards,
*So-and-so
(For the Fantastic Post Owls)


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html