I hope that all the discussions going on now will remain as a record for the time in which the ALAC Review will take place. It will be interesting to know, for the reviewers, how much time is spent on substantial discussions, and how much time on procedural matters. In particular, how much time is spent in revisiting former consensus decisions taken only few months earlier.
From the attitude point of view, what is appalling, looking from the outside, is how a couple of people have inherited the Jeff William syndrome, i.e. the belief that when they speak, that means that this is the consensus position, and just because the majority does not have neither time nor envy to reply to each and every message, that becomes the consensus, overriding previous decisions. Last but not least, I do not take sides on what form of vote will be more democratic, I just only note that there is one fundamentally undemocratic approach, which is to change the rules of an election on the day before the elections, when nominations are already closed (based on the previous rules). Whether this is on the voting mechanism for ALAC reps, or on the number of seats for the Board. The only good thing is that, as I hoped, all ALSes have signed, making the whole fandango raised on the MoU a complete loss of time. Incidentally, I will write to a trusted third party my forecast on the result, and that can be compared at the end with what really happened. It is a bit funny, because I have the impression that there's a lot of noise for an election that, for the ALAC seats, has the result already known, if you just sit down and think. Cheers, Roberto