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

[elfundeb2]

Thanks, Tom, for your additional thoughts and ideas on the proposal
to revitalize this list. I'm sorry it took so long to respond, but
I wanted to give your ideas the time they deserved, and of course RL
intervened as well. I agree with quite a few of them, as you'll see
from the following comments. One caveat: These views are my own,
and don't necessarily represent the views of anyone except
myself.

> 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.
>
Reflecting back, I think that the state of affairs on FAQ when you
joined were unique. When I joined FAQ, all of the members of the FAQ
list were on MEG except the new recruits (there were four of us, I
believe), and the project was under the jurisdiction of the eight
Mods. There was never any question that the project was under the
Mods' jurisdiction and control. In contrast, you joined the FAQ list
at a time when the list had just been placed back under the
jurisdiction a former Mod who was no longer a member of MEG. Also,
many of the FAQ members were no longer on MEG. I'm not surprised you
were left with the impression that the list was completely
independent, and the way it was run at the time fostered that
impression. The FAQ list was in fact still under MEG's jurisdiction,
but that was unfortunately not made clear to the new members.

> 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.
„«
I'm not very Percy-esque at all, I'm afraid, and as a tax lawyer
with long experience in reading and interpreting long complicated
regulations (six volumes worth!) I'm acutely aware of the potential
for exploitation of too-detailed rules. I'm more of an advocate of
simplification of rules so that they enunciate broad principles with
the explicit expectation that people will uphold the *spirit* of the
rules (more on that below). I will readily admit, however, that many
people, including some of my MEG colleagues, prefer your approach.

> 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.
„«
It won't come as a surprise that I agree with this. ;-)

> 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.
„«
Absolutely, and perhaps this is why I was so perplexed why the FAQ
members *wanted* to spend time talking about governance. When I was
a non-MEG member of FAQ I didn't care how the list was governed as
long as I had sufficient resources and support to carry out my
assignments.

> 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).

Yes to including the document in the files section. However, as I
suggested above, I'd prefer the rules to be expressed as much as
possible in simple, easily understood principles. It's too easy to
become lost in the details, when principles accompanied by good
judgment should suffice.

In my mind, very little in the way of rules should be required.
Ideally, the operating rules would be something like the following:
(i) the rules of conduct in the HBfile apply to this list (in other
words, be considerate: no flaming etc., no disparagement of HPFGU
members not on the FAQ list); (ii) FPs are assigned on a first come,
first served basis, except that coauthorship is encouraged (this
avoids endless wrangling about how to decide what FPs to do and who
will do what); (iii) the list will be moderated by a small number of
elves who will be in charge of the project (and will be the only
moderators, for security reasons); (iv) there will be a mechanism to
address grievances, including a go-to person for interpersonal
issues; (v) policy issues should be raised offlist or on the
Feedback list (if appropriate for that list).

I had also envisioned that new FAQ members would receive a welcome
message generally explaining how things work.

> 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. 

While I think the question of permanent lurkers does need to be
addressed, there needs to be substantial flexibility. For example, I
don't think those who have contributed in the past but are currently
snowed under by RL should be forced to leave if they expect to
return to the project within a reasonable amount of time; continuity
is lost that way. Also, some apparent lurkers joined this list to
fulfill specific functions, such as editing or html coding and other
final preparation of FPs for release. Including a list of members
and their roles in the database section would alleviate this issue.
>
> 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.

One of our more technically skilled elves has been working on 
updating our links, so this is being taken care of.
>
> 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.

Thanks! While I appreciate the praise, much of the document was cut
and pasted from other documents prepared by Dicentra, Porphyria,
and Penny, and they deserve equal credit.

> 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.

For the most part, I think this can be resolved simply by not using
people's *last* names. We have permission to use their material, and
not using last names is in recognition of the Google problem
mentioned by so many on the Feedback list last month. Most people
don't use their last names, anyway.

> 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:

We might want to use this letter for people who joined the list in
the period when the HBfile didn't expressly grant permission to use
the material. Fortunately, most of those people are still around and
can be reached. With the older posts, it's likely that most of them
won't be reachable at the same email addresses they used 2-3 years
ago.

Again, thanks for your thoughtful response. Hopefully some others
will chime in with comments of their own.

Debbie