On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Stuart West <stuwest(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The hope was to attract/identify Board candidates who could add a lot
of value to the movement but who, for one reason or another, would
NOT typically be candidates in election. That might be because they
aren't well-known in the editing community that decides elections. Or
as Thomas mentions that they wouldn't be interested in going through
the sometimes grueling election process.
There is a very noted cognitive dissonance here. I don't see how it
would be more grueling to be "frankly and freely" discussed in
private, than being so discussed in public. If that was what was
genuinely happening. In practise what appeared to be the thing that
needed to be shielded from the public gaze was the process, not the
candidates or any speech about them. I am sorry, but I have call them
as I see them.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]