On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 7:20 PM, Adrian Raddatz <ajraddatz@gmail.com> wrote:

We're concerned with him calling out one person in particular, not with the general topic. I've also specifically pointed out how this year's committee has already taken action to fix this problem, or at least create a more balanced approach to awarding them. Has there been any actual discussion of this? Or other specific measures that could be used, beyond sweeping allegations of nepotism and complaints against specific recipients?

Sweeping allegations of nepotism? I haven't read that in this thread. Other specific measures? I'm sure there are quite a few - you could limit scholarship applicants to no more than 2 out of 5 events, or investigate the value provided to recipients and their home communities to ensure that some benefit is being received by the latter. Perhaps some threshold for benefit, with its own point value, should be demonstrated for repeat recipients. The scholarships could also be broken out by category, with some chunk reserved for (1) repeat outstanding recipients (2) first time attendees (3) representatives of under-represented regions, etc.

Praveen clearly understands that using individual names to illustrate the problem isn't a perfect solution, but he used the examples he had personal knowledge of in the hopes that others would be able to see why he felt that was necessary and engage with him on the general problem. That's a reasonable approach, though open to criticism. However, attempting to shout him down is what is inappropriate.