Christoph Bruch wrote:
Just for the record: I did not propose to bend or change the agreed voting procedure. I suggested to find a compromise and to then vote accordingly.
Except for the fact that what you suggest is not a compromise. The common understanding of a compromise is something that goes in the direction of taking into account the opinion/needs of the different parties. Your "compromise" takes fully into consideration the position that we should not have two representatives from ISOC Chapters, while it does not take into consideration at all the position that we should not elect somebody who has no experience and has not contributed so far. Thomas is right when he states that there has been no serious attempt to find a consensus/compromise solution. All what I have heard so far is the mantra that we need a specific person for the sole reason of ensuring diversity. Cheers, Roberto