Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankJ
Please don't take this as disparaging Woodie Flower award winners. They are all amazing. Nor even the process really. But the whole thing is sort of a meh to me. For every Woodie Flower award winner there are a plethora of mentors deserving of the award. Many on them mentor teams that the members don't know enough about the award to write an effective application...
|
This is very true. We all love WFA, but I wonder if what we're discussing here is the
ad hoc struggle to scale the old selection system. Having it run by WFAs is great, but it imposes particular limits on the process (and I won't claim to know what they all are). Is the committee and community still convinced that the original approach is strongest, or are we facing practical limitations of the system? For instance, if we wanted to add a DWFFA or send more DChamps WFFAs, is the debate philosophical or also practical in being able to vet enough nominations quickly enough? We tweak little aspects of the Chairman's process every few years. Is it time to open similar discussions with the WFA committee?