Non-Distorted Message Here (WAS Re: Some Ideas on Getting FAQ Up and Running

[Tom Wall]

Uh, sorry for the horrible formatting with the punctuation... I'm 
not exactly sure how that happened, except that I sent it from my 
mail account. Here it is again as a direct post through webview. I'm 
also resending it to HpforGrownUps-owner since I'm not sure if the 
same distortions happened in the e-mail version.

Apologies to everyone for the duplicate mails.

-Tom

**********

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, I've been extraordinarily busy in RL for the past
two weeks; additionally, I've tried to dole out my limited online
time to the answering of personal e-mails, which I felt took a
higher priority. Of course, I'm still *very* behind on those, and
still owe some responses. So, I haven't - 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, I'm 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, I'm 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 Abigail's 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 won't 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: I'm 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 didn't 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 y'all
probably know, I'm 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 MEG's 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 everyone's life more
difficult, nor to mire y'all 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; it's also the reason I tried to
jumpstart the latest - and ultimately failed - round of discussion
on new members. It's `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. That's all it'd take for a few others
to sign up on the topic and then we'd be in a needless and
protracted policy discussion all over again. In short, I feel like a
large part of the unpleasantness (for which I'm 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, I'm 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 doesn't 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 don't
see the need for any other issue or policy to be up for grabs or
open to discussion around here. We're here to write FP essays.
*That's* the priority. So let's make sure that - as a matter of
precaution and prudence - there's 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, I'd 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 we'll be
working.

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

Guys, if the rules aren't clear for everyone *before* the new people
start coming in, I *guarantee* y'all 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 don't 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 it's 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? That's
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 FAQ's 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 aren't
exactly my forte) I have two briefer points to make regarding some
other stuff that's 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 Debbie's recent FAQ Guidelines file, and it
is *excellent.* Nice work, Debbie... I'm amazed at how much
information you managed to cram into a three page document. ;-) I'd
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 it's
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 won't 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 anyone's
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 we'd 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 doesn't 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 it's 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 shouldn't 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 won't 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, I've split everything up into this post and another which hasn't
been finished yet. I hope to post it later on, after we've 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, that's about it from me,
-Tom


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

Dear *So-and-so,

Hi there! I'm *So-and-so, and I'm 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 HPfGU's members.

Well, I'm excited to let you know that we're 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 we'd like to feature on the Fantastic Posts
website, which is one of the ways that we promote HPfGU to the
general public.

The reason I'm 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 don't want your name or
work to appear on the website, then we completely understand. Just
reply to this e-mail and tell us what you'd prefer we not include on
the website (your name, a citation, anything at all). In that case,
we'll simply refer to your post without referencing you by name or
including any direct quotes. If you don't reply to this e-mail, then
we'll assume that you don't 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)