I'm posting this here because I don't want to contribute to a
thread which hopefully has died a peaceful death. First and foremost, I'd like to thank everyone who had meaningful comments about the elections process and everyone working hard to ensure a fair and meaningful election - especially Peter Goodwin, Donna Fluegel, Janet and Glen Tryson, and JJ. It is unfortunate that the deadline for proxy declariation is two weeks in advance per the bylaws, but as has been noted, this was codified years ago, and the absence of contested elections has not motivated a change.
I agree with the substance of what Maryann has to say - it would be great if a way could be found to extend the proxy deadline (ditto mikeminium and others), and having board members up for reelection involved in the election process does give the appearance of impropriety. There is a reason people recuse themselves. That said, I am optimistic that Janet, Glen, and JJ will ensure a fair election.
However, I take great umbridge at two things from that thread: first, Peter Goodwin's responses to Maryann via e-mail were unacceptable. I am not privy to their private correspondence - but whatever the tone or tenor of the conversation, it is the responsibility of authority in particular to maintain a professional attitude. I recognize that text, like e-mail, forums, and so on, because it lacks context can be interpreted in a way that is more antagonistic than intended. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that Maryann's comments were so received.
I condemn
sammy's remarks in the strongest possible terms; they were beyond the pale, venturing from criticism to ad hominem, and have absolutely no place in rational policy discourse by adults. The cloak of anonymity enables polemic and excoriating criticism of others under the guise of discourse without fear of ostracism. It is the pinnacle of cowardice.
I have no qualms replying to even
obtuse remarks if they are about substance and policy. In that post, sammy attempted to falsely and deceptively cast the coalition policy perspective. They used the strawman of malicious and furtive vitriol to discount our substantive views. It would be an interesting exercise to make a complete list of logical fallacies - strawman, No true Scotsman, circular reasoning (complaining), and oversimplification at least. I defer to a rhetorical master like j-man to deconstruct such remarks.
But the way to deal with a troll is to ignore them. Until sammy learns basic tenets of respectful discourse, this seems the best approach.
Too much has already been written about petty and irrelevant matters. There are perfectly reasonable policy grounds on which to disagree with the coalition. As (obviously) one of its advocates, I cannot guarantee that our approach will work. Maybe after five or more years of wholehearted effort, we will still find that the policies we advocate do not grow the sport any more than the existing ones. My argument is that a revised approach is more likely to succeed, and we know empirically from the past several years that the existing approach did not. We all have the same goal, and we all need to figure out how we can move forward most productively.
If all else fails, maybe I'll move to Canada.