1 |
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:33 AM William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> What I meant to say makes no sense was your commentary above, which got |
4 |
> deleted from this some how, about selection bias. That seems to be true |
5 |
> for any elected position -- you have people running for the position who |
6 |
> are interested in having the job. :-) |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
I don't see the disagreement here. You seem to agree there is |
10 |
selection bias, and are just extending it even further. |
11 |
|
12 |
I agree with that. Asking the Council whether we need a Council makes |
13 |
as much sense as asking the Trustees whether we need a Foundation. |
14 |
|
15 |
Obviously we are all smart people, and to an extent we can recognize |
16 |
our biases and compensate. I'm not saying they shouldn't have a say. |
17 |
I'm just saying that in the end any proposals on ultimate direction |
18 |
should probably go back to the voters, and ideally with more than just |
19 |
a yes/no option (which is terrible for expressing mandate, and can |
20 |
lead to distortions due to a lack of nuance - just look at Brexit). |
21 |
|
22 |
-- |
23 |
Rich |