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