Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I agree with Vanda, the key issue was to show competence and engagement. The big steps forward done by ALAC in the last years were recognized by the different groups that had to propose the change: the Board Review WG, the SIC, and then the Board itself.
I would note the exception of Westlake, that at great expense examined the same situation and came to the exact opposite conclusion. Since I considered the Westlake staff competent and well-meaning, I can only wonder at what instructions and premises they had to work with. It almost seems in hindsight as if commissioning Westlake was a test of how we could deal with direct adversity.
I hope that this will be taken as a recognition for the work done, but also as the beginning of a next step. There is still much to do ahead.
Of that there can be no doubt. :-) - Evan