> On 27 May 2020, at 16:43, Brian Nisbet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I believe we should complete this process without making any changes or
> having any pauses. I then believe, in line with what was already agreed, the
> process should be reviewed and I have some suggestions for that review.
I agree wholeheartedly with this.
We have rough consensus for the current process. It should proceed as-is.
Introducing a delay is not going to help. If anything, it will add unwelcome
risks and uncertainties at this very critical point.
The concerns that Nick and others have raised are reasonable in principle. But
sadly they are not timely. Besides, there’s no (rough) consensus for adding a
further delay or finding some other way to resolve these concerns. IMO that
means the pragmatic approach is to continue with the current process and
timetable.
We can surely trust the Nomcom to have taken note of these concerns as part of
their deliberations. So let them do their job.
The appointment process will get reviewed after it has been run. That will be
the appropriate time and place to consider these concerns and make whatever
adjustments are thought necessary for the next time an appointment needs to be
made.
