I don't remember any major scandals in May - there was nothing much to talk about. There needs to be some disagreement in order to get lots of back-and-forth. Everyone agreeing that we're all very grateful for the excellent job Florence did as board chair doesn't make for a lengthy debate! Now, had she done a bad job, we could have had a brilliant discussion about it. So basically, you should blame Florence! ;)
That's if we can consider her interaction with the community blameworthy.
Viewed in that light, is it too self-serving to say that two of us on the top posters list are also current board candidates.
I think there's been some serious misunderstanding of my comment (which I take responsibility for, I thought it was clear what I meant, but obviously I was mistaken). I was just joking. One of the major threads during the month was one where everyone congratulated and thanked Florence for a job well done. This was a fairly short thread, since everyone agreed that she'd done a good job so there was just one email per person and the thread finished. Had Florence been a bad chair, there would have been more disagreement among people commenting prompting more discussion, so there would have been some back-and-forth resulting in a much longer thread. I concluded from that that the lower total activity during the month, and therefore Milos' "winning", was down to Florence doing such a good job as chair, and therefore Milos should blame her for him being top of the list (which is generally considered a bad thing, hence the use of the word "blame").
It was a light hearted comment and I meant no offence to anyone. It was intended to be funny, but I clearly failed rather drastically - you know a joke has failed when you have to explain it. Once again, I apologise to anyone offended by my poor attempt at humour.