The problem is that the current place this is being done is NOT all-inclusive, nor is there any accountability there.
The section does not host its own membership forum for this debate either. "Announce-only" doesn't cut it.
So where does this leave us - the membership?
There are few comments on my forum as of yet, and what IS there has not going into "flamefest" mode. Nor do I think it will, unless people try to either duck issues or outright misrepresent things - in which case IMHO the people doing it deserve to be called on the carpet, and not necessarily politely.
I've talked with some of the candidates one-on-one - the problem is that this sort of discussion permits no means to fact-check anything, and is more of a "feel good" thing rather than asking hard questions and getting tough answers - and public promises of performance.
With the current situation with lack of transparency, this means that I have a ballot with no means to determine how to vote it.
Position statements are IMHO not enough; without some form of accountability the best one can do is "throw the bums out" (that being all incumbents) on the premise that dysfunction can't be rationally rewarded, no matter how you feel on the issues beyond that.
I'm hoping to see a constructive debate, and I've got a number of issues that I think need to be raised and answers given - where everyone can read them, so that promises made can be promises kept.
There are very specific performance metrics that I believe that the membership should demand be met immediately, and I'm sure others have similar metrics they believe should be met immediately. I'm also quite sure my list doesn't match others exactly, although I bet there is lots of overlap.
That's why I set up the area. I understand that some desire not to participate in such a debate - but that puts me in an awfully tough spot when I get out my pen to vote the ballot....
Welcome to the Cave Diver's Forum.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ken Hill
Bookmarks