Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Jones
I can’t help but see the irony in a request for transparency that was drafted, apparently in secret, by a group of thirty-five among thousands.
|
It wasn't in secret. It just wasn't in
public.
Only those 35 people affixed their names to the letter. Many more have been involved in the discussions about what we as team members "deserve" to know about FIRST's plans for the future.
Quote:
|
Once again it proves to me that transparency is overrated.
|
"Once again"? What previous events are you thinking of?
Quote:
|
It was as if a gang of us went behind their backs, when, in reality, the only to way to affect change without creating chaos was to limit the number of seats at the table. The same is true for this effort, which is why I am disappointed that they chose to make it public. In my opinion, this is not the time nor place (as JVN once put it) ‘for everyone to put their stink on it.’
|
That sounds inconsistent. Was "limit the number of seats" to "thirty-five among thousands" a good thing or a bad thing, in your view?
Would you have preferred that this letter remain unpublished? Would you have wanted it to remain
unsent? I don't understand what your point is.