WTF is feedforward?

Boston

GuanYin wrote: »

There wasn't a conversation going on so much as a soapboxing effort by you.

No there wasn't. It amazes me how blatantly people can lie with the posts just there. Most of which weren't by my, nor addressed to me.

GuanYin wrote: »

So what if DeVore makes money, we don't pay anything we don't want to and we get the benefits of the site. I'm always told "you get what you pay for".

I don't care if DeVore gets paid or not. I've said that very clearly, if you're unable to read whats posted theres no point conversing. I'm really sick of how any time someone dares mention either profits or salary, out comes the claws like the owners are saints feeding the poor in Africa or something. It's a good damn business, its purpose of to make money, I'm not going to dance around that fact.

GuanYin wrote: »

So then there is FF. It's a plan to move boards.ie forward. It may result in changing things for the better. It may not work, like many things haven't worked on boards before (imo).

Who is it going to kill by trying?

So that's the metric we're using now? Who is it going to kill. No one. The entire site could burn down and die and no one would die. So what relevant does that analogy have?

Great arguement against FF as well, I mean, who exactly is it going to kill to allow complete top down management of the site? No one.

How is it going to influence the quality of your life or even boards experience??

GuanYin wrote: »

Your kinda posting is one of the reasons I think FF should exist. Feedback does not work. Time and time again it's been the playground of egomaniacs and bullies and people who like to re-read their own posts with satisfaction to enjoy that put down or insult they got away with.

Something needs to change and in the absence of any consensus coherent ideas put forward, FF is a fair way to go.

Oh, your personal view of me, very thinly veiled. Why is it you feel you get to comment on other user's while under the protection of being a mod?

I've reported you post, if you offer me you opinion of me again I'll offer you mine with regards to you.

Sparks

Boston wrote: »

Oh, your personal view of me, very thinly veiled. Why is it you feel you get to comment on other user's while under the protection of being a mod?

What protection?

Boston

I can provide numberous examples of moderators being abusive, uncivil and personally attacking users / other moderators on this forum without reprimand. I can also provide examples of users being abusive towards "egomaniacs" and no being reprimanded. Additionally I can provide examples of users being severely reprimanded for much less. If you doubt it, I suggest you browse the reported posts forum.

Sparks

That's not an answer to my question.

Boston

I'm sorry, I won't dump down my responses any further. I suggest you consult tea leafs for more guidance on this matter.

--amadeus--

Boston wrote: »

I'm sorry, I won't dump down my responses any further. I suggest you consult tea leafs for more guidance on this matter.

Maybe if you gave a concise, bulleted list of the reasons you think FF won't work or issues you have with it they could be taken into account and the system designed with those issues in mind?

It would be more useful than bickering.

Boston

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Maybe if you gave a concise, bulleted list of the reasons you think FF won't work or issues you have with it they could be taken into account and the system designed with those issues in mind?

It would be more useful than bickering.

DeVore wrote: »

Did you ever get the feeling that you were sorry you said anything?

I made the OP when we hadn't decided anything, including "how to decide things".

I will try to clarify as best I can.

1. There will be three forums.
FeedForward: This will be world-readable, restricted writeable to a "think tank" of experienced people chosen from users, admins, cmods, mods ... just about everyone.

FeedForward Public: A bit like the debating chamber this is a public read/writeable area for everyone to have their say. The difference between the two may well be like the difference between Humanities and Afterhours... both have their place.

Feedforward Private: At the moment the only use for this will be for discussing the suitability of members for recruiting into Feedforward itself. I want that private because I want people to be able to speak there minds. There may be other "sensitive" issues but I cant think of any others right now.


Feedforward (the write-restricted forum) breaks into two strands. We will have Free For All threads, which everyone can debate as normal in.... and "One Post Per Person" threads where each Trustee (what I am currently calling people who can write to FF) has one post and makes the most of it.

Kanye, we discussed your point in fact and since I dont want "votes" we decided to that decisions will be made by me, or by a small group. For the moment, its me, but we'll move to a small group (probably 3-5 people) in the medium term. The idea being that this is a think tank with a transparent input into decision making. I can overrule, veto and go against consensus if I wish but clearly, if I keep doing that its going to be a farce.

The issues that will be discussed will be wider policy then we might bring to Feedback simply because many people feel it will simply be opening a soapbox of worms. Personally I will dig through sh*t for the odd diamond but many others arent. This is a compromise between two appraoches.

It will be debated in public for all to see and I'll write up decisions there with my reasonings. This takes the workload off the admins to an extent and involves more people from the get-go... something that has been causing undue strife at times.

I hope that provides a little more information...

DeV.

Boston wrote: »

Grand.

Say I want to see a policy issue discussed in this FeedForward forum, can I put it forward as an outsider?

Maybe the reason you can't find a concise argument against it is that I've somewhat come around to the idea after DeVores clarification(Quoted for you convenience) as indicated by my reply (Quoted again for you convenience). In fact, I do believe I spent several posts arguing against Keynes criticisms maybe you missed them amidst all the flirting.

Did I confuse you by re-evaluating my position in light of new information? Would you feel happier if I doggedly stuck with my initial position regardless of the counter arguments offered?

GuanYin

Boston wrote: »

No there wasn't. It amazes me how blatantly people can lie with the posts just there. Most of which weren't by my, nor addressed to me.

It's not a lie, it's an opinion. You are, in my view, making a drama out of something before it's dramatic.

FF is just an idea at the moment, it hasn't failed, it hasn't succeeded. Your posts seem angry about things. I'm not saying you are angry, I'm just saying if I was asked to put an emotion on your posts, angry is what springs to mind.

But nothing has happened yet, the Admins want to try this, so let us see if it fails or not. If it does, maybe they'll try the way you'd like.

I don't care if DeVore gets paid or not. I've said that very clearly, if you're unable to read whats posted theres no point conversing. I'm really sick of how any time someone dares mention either profits or salary, out comes the claws like the owners are saints feeding the poor in Africa or something. It's a good damn business, its purpose of to make money, I'm not going to dance around that fact.

Why do you keep bringing it up? It's a business, they get money. Big deal, it really doesn't concern the issue of making boards run better. Lets take baby steps, see if the idea works, use the site as a user, which is what we are and let the people who get paid deal with things as they're paid to.

You're not being asked to pay anything and you're getting a free membership so whether DeVore gets enough money to build a bed out of twenties shouldn't matter to the issue at hand.

So that's the metric we're using now? Who is it going to kill. No one. The entire site could burn down and die and no one would die. So what relevant does that analogy have?

Because if it isn't going to have an adverse effect on anyone's life, why not let things pan out before jumping on them?

Great arguement against FF as well, I mean, who exactly is it going to kill to allow complete top down management of the site? No one.


How is it going to influence the quality of your life or even boards experience??

No, you're exactly right. But they decided to go the other way, so you know, I'll accept it and see what happens. If it turns out to be a huge waste of time and fails miserably, I'm sure I'll be on hand to offer opinion and support or maybe play devil's advocate for the next idea. What will I have lost, a few hours of typed posts? I'm sure I've wasted the Admin's time with more than that. I can't complain.

Oh, your personal view of me, very thinly veiled. Why is it you feel you get to comment on other user's while under the protection of being a mod?

I've reported you post, if you offer me you opinion of me again I'll offer you mine with regards to you.

Now Boston, my post was at least as respectful to you as yours was to me.

It wasn't my personal view on you at all. But I find your posts on this thread (not you, you might be a sweet guy) needlessly discourteous. I haven't even tried to figure out an opinion of you and not sure I could if I tried, let alone offer you one.

By the way, I am not intending to offend you, but I'm not going to lie and say I think your contributions are otherwise. I don't think I get any protection here, if I do, I don't ask or expect it. I can stand up for myself.

I'm OK with you reporting my post if it upsets you, that is what the function is for, I'm interested that you felt the need to announce it on the thread, though. To what end, I wonder.

copacetic

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'd agree with that but there is a difference between someone who is going to argue a contrary position because they believe in it and feel it is the right way to go and people who argue a contrary position because they have an axe to grind or a particular agenda to push.

In other words you want people who will attempt to use it to make things better (work within the boundaries, if you like) rather than people who will attempt to push the boundaries to see how far they go until they break, just because that's what they like or want to do.

and you also want people who will think about the merits of each idea/change, rather than automatically take the 'company line' in pursuit of brownie points (or whatever the motivation may be).

Overall I like the idea, anything has to be better than this type of thread. With a whole team of noisemakers attempting to shout down actual discussion (helped out by the people attemping real discussion giving them easy ammunition).

The key decision is who are these 'trusted' people, if they aren't the right people then it will fail.

Boston

copacetic wrote: »

The key decision is who are these 'trusted' people, if they aren't the right people then it will fail.

Well you also need to avoid the perception that it's a closed shop. If an issue comes up and a particular user opinion is respected in that area then they should be granted access to discuss that the issue. For example, say a policy is being discussed relating to the public image of boards, then by all means invite people like Damien Mulley and others to contribute. It's should be an evolving process were people contribute as much as they have time for.

copacetic

copacetic wrote: »

and you also want people who will think about the merits of each idea/change, rather than automatically take the 'company line' in pursuit of brownie points (or whatever the motivation may be).

Overall I like the idea, anything has to be better than this type of thread. With a whole team of noisemakers attempting to shout down actual discussion (helped out by the people attemping real discussion giving them easy ammunition).

The key decision is who are these 'trusted' people, if they aren't the right people then it will fail.

Actually I see now that these decsions had already been made and these new forums have been running for quite a while but hidden from view, so never mind the above.

DeVore

The only thing we decided has been how the forums will run. We have already identified that we need more user members and the group is not at all set in stone. It never will be either.

Right now we are in what I have been calling Phase 0 of FF... the set up of FF and the issues arising from it. There is a list of people who said they werent interested in Phase 0 but are interested in Phase 1 when it starts (which will be days-to-weeks and in a sense already starting).

DeV.

copacetic

DeVore wrote: »

The only thing we decided has been how the forums will run. We have already identified that we need more user members and the group is not at all set in stone. It never will be either.

Right now we are in what I have been calling Phase 0 of FF... the set up of FF and the issues arising from it. There is a list of people who said they werent interested in Phase 0 but are interested in Phase 1 when it starts (which will be days-to-weeks and in a sense already starting).

DeV.

more? even one user who isn't a current mod or ex-mod would be a start. Personally I'd remove most of the current members and start again. It currently appears to be just another mod forum made public. Ever admin, every cmod and pretty much any 'involved' mod appears to be a member. Way too many imo. Every thread on there reads pretty much just like a mod fourm thread with the same people that fill those threads up too. It adds the transparency bit but nothing else at the moment (which is a step foward, but a small one).

My name is URL

I'm a little unclear as to what purpose the public side of FF serves tbh. Can anyone start a thread there about site policy etc or is it only for the public discussion of topics already in the read-only forum?

Boston

copacetic wrote: »

more? even one user who isn't a current mod or ex-mod would be a start. Personally I'd remove most of the current members and start again. It currently appears to be just another mod forum made public. Ever admin, every cmod and pretty much any 'involved' mod appears to be a member. Way too many imo. Every thread on there reads pretty much just like a mod fourm thread with the same people that fill those threads up too.

I have to agree. I was taking back by some of the people who are trustee's. Not because I think they're bad people, just that I'd either never seen them post on feedback threads, or seen them reply very seldom.

all admins,
all cmods
Darragh

Why is darragh a trustee? Boards.ie is just his job. I can understand him being an invited guest, but he doesn't seem to fit into the profile of trustee.

Doctor Doom

Doctor Doom is a fringe moderator. I was afraid feed-forward would be filled with the usual suspects from the larger communities. It's good to see someone from the fringe communities on board since it's so easy for those communities to become isolationist, especially in a large site like boards. There is a weight of responsibility upon this trustee.

Ropedrink

Mr Rantie Mc Oldschool himself. Ropedrink is contrary but also a believer in common sense. He'll help build a compromised consensus but you'll need to convince him first.

Dord

No honest idea about this user.

Steve

Valued contributor, de-escalator and well established. Will help build consensus through compromise.

Wibbs

Inflated sense of self importance and entitlement at times. Will become difficult like Des if opinion isn't listened to on this new forum. A risky inclusion.

Almighty Cushion

Common sense advocate. Valuable moderate and user. Should provide worthwhile feedback if listened to.

Sparks

Mistake. User is unable to accept differing approaches and methods. Makes huge assumptions about people he's arguing with and will dismiss their opinions using "inside track" information, such as having met administrators. Not a consensus builder not a de escalator.

Muffler

Depth of knowledge about the internal workings of boards.ie, valued contributor on any feedback thread. Posts definitely worth reading from my point of view.

PSNI

Very good moderator, good at handling messy situations in a professional manor. An asset to the forum.

Agent Smith

A real case of any moderator will do. I'd really like to hear the rational behind this one.

Seamus

Ex administrator and general de-escalator. Seamus is most definitely in the fold when it comes to boards.ie policy decisions, so might as well formalise the process.

Chris

Who the hell is chris? He has no posts in feedback. I assume he's a rereg, but of whom?

Smashey

Smashey is an administrator, I'm not too sure why DeVore is including administrators specifically on the list.

Hill Billy

I've no strong opinion on this user. Which in and of itself is a criticism. One has to wonder why this user wants to be a trustee? I hazard a guess he accidentally stumbled into the request thread and said "Me to kthxbye".

Deleted User

Expect awkward questions being asked in an awkward way. I don't know how conducive to consensus building this user will be, but should make for some interesting discussions.

Bonkey

Bonkey is a bit of a legend. I don't think I have to sell this user since his involvement is one of those obvious absolutely good things. Instead I'll recount how I first came across bonkey.

I can't find the thread now, but back in the day some space cadets couldn't tell the difference between the user name boston and the user name bonkey. With the result that DeVore was getting complaints about bonkey relating to post made by me. It was all rather confusing.

Ponster

I don't see this user making usegul contributions to feed-forward. Thats not to say he/she doesn't add tofeedback when posting, just that I haven't see a lot of activity. Maybe that's a good thing in that he/she is fresh and not tainted from years of feedback battles.

dr.bollocko

What I call a common sense advocate. Will generally agree with a well thought out argument regardless of who makes it. A de-escalator. Definitely agree with this addition.

Des

Passionate advocate of his position on feedback threads. Often crosses the line into abusive and condescending posts. Detracts from the times when he makes use-full contributions. Embittered about current governance system. If feed-forward works the way it's meant to be, his input will be invaluable. However at the first sign of smoke and mirrors, he will attempt to burn down the house of cards.

Time Magazine

An absolute pedant. Will attempt to argue legalise of the subject matter and use semantics. Very concerned with winning. Will not be constructive towards consensus building.

GuanYin

Controversial moderator who has been at the centre of many controversies. Has as many detractors as supporters. Good call being added, but may lead to imbalance in discussions towards extremism.

Mr E

Good contributor, good moderator. Tendency towards quick insightful points rather then essays.

donegalfella

Good addition. Genuine posts demonstrating apt people skills and ability to form consensus while taking on-board constructive feedback.

Convert

No posts on feedback ever. Not a single sign of having any interest in boards.ie policy.

Thaedydal

Well established and certainly opinionated user. Contributions well worth listening to. Both a main stream and fringe moderator.

Cabansail

Another moderator I've never seen give feedback on anything not directly relating to the forum they mod. He seems to be making an effort though, so maybe fresh eyes are a good thing?

Poor Uncle Tom

who?

--amadeus--

Keen insight, can be controversial, but generally sensible. Well established and respected as both moderator and user.

copacetic

Boston wrote: »

I have to agree. I was taking back by some of the people who are trustee's. Not because I think they're bad people, just that I'd either never seen them post on feedback threads, or seen them reply very seldom.

all admins,
all cmods
Darragh

Why is darragh a trustee? Boards.ie is just his job. I can understand him being an invited guest, but he doesn't seem to fit into the profile of trustee.

Doctor Doom

Doctor Doom is a fringe moderator. I was afraid feed-forward would be filled with the usual suspects from the larger communities. It's good to someone from the fringe communities on board since it's so easy for those communities to become isolationist, especially in a large site like boards. There is a weight of responsibility upon this trustee.

Ropedrink

Mr Rantie Mc Oldschool himself. Ropedrink is contrary but also a believer in common sense. He'll help build a compromised consenus but you'll need to convince him first.

Dord

No honest idea about this user.

Steve

Valued contributor, de-escalator and well established. Will help build consensus trhough compromise.

Wibbs

Inflated sense of self importance and entitlement at times. Will become difficult like Des if opinion isn't listened to on this new forum. A risky inclusion.

Almighty Cushion

Common sense advocate. Valuable moderate user. Should provide wothwhile feedback.

Sparks

Mistake. User is unable to accept differing approaches and methods. Makes huge assumptions about people he's arguing about and will dismiss their opinions using "inside track" information, such as having met administrators. No a consensus builder not a de escalator.

Muffler

Depth of knowledge about the internal workings of boards.ie, valued contributor on any feedback thread. Posts definitely worth reading from my point of view.

PSNI

Very good moderator, good at handling messy situations in a professional manor. An asset to the forum.

Agent Smith

A real case of any moderator will do. I'd really like to hear the rational behind this one.

Seamus

Ex administrator and general de-escalator. Seamus is most definitely in the fold when it comes to boards.ie policy decisions, so might as well formalise the process.

Chris

Who the hell is chris? He has no posts on in feedback. I assume he's a rereg, but of whom?

Smashey

Smashey is an administrator, I'm not too sure why DeVore is including administrators specifically on the list.

Hill Billy

I've no strong opinion on this user. Which in and of itself is a criticism. One aas to wonder why this user wants to be a trustee? I hazard a guess he accidentally stumbled into the request thread and said "Me to kthxbye".

Deleted User

Expect awkward questions being asked in an awkward way. I don't know how conducive to consensus building this user will be, but should make for some interesting discussions.

Bonkey

Bonkey is a bit of a legend. I don't think I have to see this user since his involvement is one of those obvious absolutely good things. Instead I'll recount how I first came across bonkey.

I can't find the thread now, but back in the day some space cadets couldn't tell the difference between the user name boston and the user name bonkey. With the result that DeVore was getting complaints about bonkey relating to post made by me. It was all rather confusing.

Ponster

I don't see this user making use contributions to feed-forward. Thats not to say he/she doesn't add the the feedback when posting, just that I haven't see a lot of activity. Maybe thats a good thing in that he/she is fresh and not tainted from years of feedback battles.

dr.bollocko

What I call a common sense advocate. Will generally agree with a well thought out argument regardless of who makes it. A de-escalator. Definitely agree with this addition.

Des

Passionate advocate of his position on feedback threads. Often crosses the line into abusive and condescending posts. Detracts from the times when he makes use-full contributions. Embittered about current governance system. If feed-forward works the way it's meant to be, his input will be invaluable. However at the first sign of smoke and mirros, he will attempt to burn down the house of cards.

Time Magazine

An absolute perdant. Will attempt to argue legalise of the subject matter and use semantics. Very concerned with winning. Will not be constructive towards consensus building.

GuanYin

Controversial moderator who has been at the center of many controversies. As many detractors as supporters. Good call being added, but may lead to imbalance in discussions.

Mr E

Good contributor, good moderator. Tendency towards quick insightful points rather then essays.

donegalfella

Good addition. Genuine posts demonstrating apt people skills and ability to form consensus and take on-board constructive feedback.

Convert

No posts on feedback ever. Not a single sign of having any interest in boards.ie policy.

Thaedydal

Well established and certainly opinionated user. Contributions well worth listening to. Both a main stream and fringe moderator.

Cabansail

Another moderator I've never seen give feedback on anything not directly relating to the forum they mod. He seems to be making an effort though, so maybe fresh eyes are a good thing?

Poor Uncle Tom

who?

--amadeus--

Keen insight, can be controversial, but generally sensible. Well established and respected as both moderator and user.

heh, I'd love to see your sysnopsis of Boston?

Leaving individual decisions aside the issue is around numbers really, there appears to have been an attempt to evenly pick numbers from various groupings, total yes men/women, middle grounders and a group of 'no men/women'. Ending up with small groups of similar opinions along with all the admins and cmods. Doesn't make any sense. Would have been much better to start off with a very small grouping, and extend it. There must be 50 mods currently and not one user except Seamus? Who you'd have to call a user*.

I'd throw it all away and start from scratch with a much more careful review of the users added.

-Chris-

Boston wrote: »

[/INDENT]Chris

Who the hell is chris? He has no posts on in feedback. I assume he's a rereg, but of whom?

That would be me.

I also have few posts on feedback and no posts on feedforward. I feel like I have something to contribute, but I'm not sure what it is yet.

Boston

It seems that the only criteria used was "Is a moderator, and wants the job". I find it amazing that doesn't the phase 0, arguably the most important stage, not a single established user is a trustee. Who the trustee's where was obviously going to be a contentious yet no attempt has been made to justify the selection.

copacetic wrote: »

heh, I'd love to see your sysnopsis of Boston?

Boston isn't a trustee.

Nevyn

I see you have been watching how to lose friends and alienate people again :P
You do know you just made it a hell of a lot harder for you to be included in FF as a poster?

Boston

Thaedydal wrote: »

I see you have been watching how to lose friends and alienate people again :P

I think the listed people can take it somehow.

Thaedydal wrote: »

You do know you just made it a hell of a lot harder for you to be included in FF as a poster?

My motivations aren't necessarily what one might think. I've been here a long time and I've managed to avoid being aligned for or against any grouping. We'll see.

Hagar

Thaedydal wrote: »

You do know you just made it a hell of a lot harder for you to be included in FF as a poster?

I think this just about covers Boston's chances - Classic scene from Dumb & Dumber

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...
Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

GuanYin

-Chris- wrote: »

That would be me.

I also have few posts on feedback and no posts on feedforward. I feel like I have something to contribute, but I'm not sure what it is yet.

You're mod of one of the biggest and highest traffic forums on the site. You obviously know the users of that forum, many of whom have no sense of boards hierarchy.

That alone, imo, qualifies you, not that you need to justify to anyone.

There should be users involved and there will be, imo. I imagine it's harder to identify from the userbase than the mod base when you're basing criteria on feedback posts (like some on this thread for instance), which is maybe why users haven't been added yet.

Mr. Presentable

So, who cares wtf feedforward is?



Seriously, outside of a small group, who actually cares? The very vast majority of posters and unregged browsers don't. They just want a site that works.

For those that care, I among them, it ought to be the opportunity to feel you can make an actual impactive, positive (however small), contribution to how this great forum works. A constructive repayment, if you will.

Today I discovered Feedforward has been in place a month. Quite by chance.

There is a Public view, but without having an avid interest in seeking it out, where is the common user going to find it. I suggest, given the nature of the aspiration, that a sticky on the front page be created for the Public view Feedforward. Otherwise it just looks like cloak and dagger stuff.

The Recliner

Boston wrote: »

I think the listed people can take it somehow.

I feel so hurt and unloved that I wasn't Bostonised

Sparks

The Recliner wrote: »

I feel so hurt and unloved that I wasn't Bostonised

It's okay, just change your user tag from Moderator to Kapo and you can replicate the effect easily enough...

Boston

The Recliner wrote: »

I feel so hurt and unloved that I wasn't Bostonised

According to this post you don't have access.

DeVore

Fixed now.

DeV.

Boston

Grand.

The Recliner, tell me if you please, why did you want to be a trustee and what do you hope to add to the process? What will you take away from the experience. If you can't answer that you shouldn't be a trustee.

DeVore

No one needs to justify anything to you and your over blown ego Boston.

DeV.

Boston

DeVore wrote: »

No one needs to justify anything to you and your over blown ego Boston.

DeV.

Sure they do, it's in the law somewhere. You just keep your attitude that no one needs to justify anything, explain anything, or take on board anything, I hope it hold fine for you. But don't turn around and wonder why people don't come to you first with issues, seek clarifications and ask for any one of hundred things they have no real right to but which would make this site easier to operate. What you fail to realise is that there's probably a fair few people thinking "wtf, why is that person a trustee" but they don't ask because, well, it's your site and your rules and asking is kinda rude when you get down to it.

Now I've asked a perfectly simple and direct question. The recliner is clearly under no obligation to answer me. I've no more standing on boards.ie Ltd then he has, infact, if he answers me he may be chastised for pandering to me by others. However, the fact remains that the question I asked should have been the first question you asked, so the recliner should really have an answer.

Why did I ask The Recliner? Because regardless of whether or not you asked him I think he'll have a pretty good answer to the question, one that may make others re-evaluate whether or not they're the right material so to speak. Perhaps convince the others the process has merit and that people aren't just signing up to be trustees for the ego boost or to be on the inside/in the know.

I'll say one more thing, this new process is a risky gambit, a last throw of the dice to bring all those jaded and disaffected members of the boards.ie community back into the fold. You said as much yourself here. Now as I said, I've come around to this idea and I'll support it, but I'm still doing to ask the questions I think need to be asked. If you see that as picking holes and a attempting to undermine, so be it.