[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: Motion of Duty Transfer to the New Panel
Abel Wisman wrote:
Verification of panel members was done before and during the election.
Several panel members opened themselves up to scrutiny and were
"rewarded" with "points" on a scale from 1-5 ascertaning their being
real.
The methods used to 'scrutinize' the members were never made public.
That is hardly transparent. I cannot accept a method I know nothing
about.
Since the membership chose to elect some candidates that did not go
through this verification process there seems to be a need to verify
those members. That however does not prevent the candidates that were
elected to form the panel and start the work.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we're going to
verify some, then we must verify all, to be fair. After all, the fact
that some were elected who were not properly verified says a lot about
the quality and outcome of the undisclosed 'scrutiny' process you refer to.
This is the first atlarge election where verification was undertaken and
it was not a "rule" to be verified to begin with.
We have to start somewhere and thre's really no time like the present.
Providing all not yet verified panel members will stand the test of
verification by the committee that did such a great job before and
during the electtion I see no problem in moving along.
Obviously the committee did not do a very good job if the unverified
members in question were allowed to continue on as candidates.
This time around, verification is being held to a higher standard, and
the processes are transparent as the membership knows how the
verification is being accomplished.
--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de