15-08-2013, 07:33 PM
Well, it's nice to see we're all back to hating each other.
Look, seriously. These rejected motions are seeking to do something people who know more about these things than me are saying that the AGM is not competent to do. They are also both bringing up a specific past case which came before the Standards Committee, and about which there has been considerable controversy, in the past year. I can see why people feel strongly about the issues involved, but I would feel more comfortable if, given their personal and specific nature, they were not aired in public.
I don't think there is any reason to post them at all. At the very least, they do not belong in this thread, which is for the discussion of AGM candidacies.
Look, seriously. These rejected motions are seeking to do something people who know more about these things than me are saying that the AGM is not competent to do. They are also both bringing up a specific past case which came before the Standards Committee, and about which there has been considerable controversy, in the past year. I can see why people feel strongly about the issues involved, but I would feel more comfortable if, given their personal and specific nature, they were not aired in public.
I don't think there is any reason to post them at all. At the very least, they do not belong in this thread, which is for the discussion of AGM candidacies.