AndyB there was no question of your ethical impropriety in the first place, that was your reaction. I highlighted a genuine democratic issue with the nominations/processes. We are only still discussing the 'old ground' because AndyH suggested the issue hadn't existed, and because you then rebuked me on that basis.
The point I was making was that overall, there is not much in the way of a democratic mandate for such a drastic rule change.
Like Andrew Greet I speak from a position of great respect for you (indeed all the Andies involved
) and ask you to consider just the points made. In particular, whether this change is good for the Olympiad team and the natural interests of the CS membership that they represent. This includes players and candidates of course, but the CS membership is much wider!
Is there anything to lose by just consulting the membership? We already have electronic voting - if a general election can be held in three weeks, well you know....
Cheers
Walter
The point I was making was that overall, there is not much in the way of a democratic mandate for such a drastic rule change.
Like Andrew Greet I speak from a position of great respect for you (indeed all the Andies involved
) and ask you to consider just the points made. In particular, whether this change is good for the Olympiad team and the natural interests of the CS membership that they represent. This includes players and candidates of course, but the CS membership is much wider! Is there anything to lose by just consulting the membership? We already have electronic voting - if a general election can be held in three weeks, well you know....
Cheers
Walter