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

[Ali]

I apologise that this response has taken so long. It's been buring 
away on my "things to do list", but the longer I delayed, the more I 
thought I could delay a little further!

Tom wrote:
 
>> 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 think this is where you and I differ greatly! Although I'm 
fascinated by law and rules etc, in places like FAQ, I see only the 
need for guidelines - ropes to guide us, not bind us.
 
>>> 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) >>>

That's how I would like to be. Instead, I tend to work in a mess. 
The only thing saving me from oblvion is that I've got a good 
memory, and tend to remember where I've put things. I think of it as 
organised chaos.

 
>>> 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.>>>

I agree. 

>>>> 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.<<<

Hmmn, I really do think that we do need to have more robust 
guidelines, but I'm not sure that it is necessary for *every* 
operational procdure to be discussed here first. I accept that in 
practice, most would.
 
>>>> 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.>>>

I agree that the facilitator and the moderators should be on the 
list admin team. In terms of the number of moderators, I'm not sure 
if the numbers need to be the same as the admin team. In practice, 
each list really only needs a handful of moderators. The idea of 
each person being a moderator was a kudos thing. In light of the 
fact that we will be limited to 15 moderators by Yahoo, it is 
perhaps easier to only keep a few moderators and make the rest, 
normal list members.

 
>>>> 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.>>>

I agree but, if there is something substantive that soembody would 
like to say, I sincerely hope that they would feel able to say it. 
But, that doesn't change what the key objectives of this list are.

>>> 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.>>>

Agreed.
 
>>>> 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 think it would be a worthwhile proposition, accepting my caveat 
that I'm after guidelines and not commandants set in stone.
  
>>> 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.>>>

This is a difficult issue. If we refuse to allow discussion, we 
might be seen to be gagging people. But at the same time we've seen 
how discussions eroded this group previously. As long as people felt 
able to ask their questions in a valid forum, then I would be happy 
to keep the subject away from here.
 
>>>> 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.>>>

I think that we should expect very high standards to apply here, 
yes. Perhaps the same rules should apply here as apply to the 
general list, or perhaps similar to the code of conduct which is to 
be implemented on MEG.

>>>> 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.>>>

I think that we are approaching the time when we can all rightfully 
ask ourselves why we are on this list? Do we still want to 
contribute? and if so, how and when?

I think that we should be prepared to tell each other what we can 
and will do. For instance, I personally can't do anything until Mid-
May. After that time I would like to be involved again. I want that 
Quidditch FAQ to go somewhere - in the bin if needs be. I would then 
either like to contribute to something about my beloved Harry or the 
Dursleys whom I love to hate.

 >>> 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.>>>

Again, I agree. I think it was Amanda who said that part of our 
problems have been essentially growing pains. HPfGU has sprung from 
a small group of friends to a large group of people who cannot 
possibly all know each other. What could once have been done by 
honour, does now need to be guided.
 
>> 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
w hen, 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.>>>

I'm not in favour of this suggestion. Each FP is made up of loads of 
contributions. I know that I personally don't want to have to wade 
through, asking for permission, when this permission has already 
been indirectly given through the HBF in place when most people 
joined. I do accept that for the couple of months last year when the 
pertinent paragraph was missing, that we will have some members who 
fell through this safety net. Perhaps to them, we owe this letter, 
but I cannot think that we do to anyone else. It *is* an accolade to 
be included.
 
Ali