I don't know what to think about a final community consultation on a
specific name. Personally I suspect that I wouldn't be able to say
anything about it, as with
Speaking of which, I wonder how the problems there were addressed:
apparently they just expanded the search and reduced the number of
people participating, but I see no answers to the question: «Have we
been looking for a unicorn -- somebody who doesn't exist in the real
world? [...] too insular? [...] unfairly comparing [...]?».
If an answer was found, I'd like to know it. To me that only looked
like a rhetorical question, because of course I have no idea what exact
criteria/questions/interview practices are being applied or if unfair
comparisons were made. To avoid another fiasco, it would probably be
useful to publish on Meta an anonymised table of candidates, pointing
out strengths and weaknesses in a single line for each. Then one could
say «oh, look, "criterion" 175 made 12 otherwise awesome candidates
"fail", do we really need it?».