Figured i did not write to the list. IMO it will really be good to know whether the point you made further calls for a review of the CCWG proposal or NOT; Saying the board did certain things in the past under existing constitution(bylaw) without indicating/confirming whether such act will continue to happen under the newly proposed constitution (bylaw amendments) does not seem to be helpful to this discussion.
We can dwell on the past for all I care, but it has little or no effect on the present nor the future if the past is not put in perspective.
Regards