Thread: [Council] Community Awards: final results
View Single Post
wolke is offline wolke
2012-06-21 , 20:18
Posts: 986 | Thanked: 1,526 times | Joined on Jul 2010
#84
Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
1&2> The criteria was not selected by the Council. It was handed to us by Nokia with the criteria in place. If anything, Council added transparency by putting in place a submission mechanism and documenting those submissions. Do you think adding a "here's why we did/didn't choose this member" section would have caused less strife, arguing, and ill will?
oh, didnt know that. no i dont think it would have caused less strife or arguing, but it wouldnt call the council's impartiality into doubt.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
3> Again, the criteria was that Council would decide, which was handed to us as part of the competition. How should it have been decided? Open discussion on an IRC channel? Do you think there was a way to do this publicly that would have lead to less argument, strife, and ill will? I'd love to hear it if you have a suggestion...
competitions with such high gains will always have ruffled feathers; i honestly dont think one way or the other would have had more complaining, since just as many would win, and just as many would lose.
i think that the most fair way to do it would have been to have the council accept a list of applicants, and have the final process done like the council election itself. {that went well, and it was democratic enough for me}.

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Actually, I'd love to hear it if you could go back in time and tell me before it started, since now it's a little late... The rules, criteria, and selection mechanism were all public and on the wiki well over a month ago.
For all the people that are now suddenly so concerned about it, nobody mentioned any issues until after the competition was over.
what im asking for isnt for it to be magically fixed, but for the unfairness to be addressed publicly by the committe in some way that smoothes the ruffled feathers. {i wasnt on TMO nearly all last month for personal reasons}

Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
As for 4>, I will not comment on that other than to say for my own reasons I did not submit my name as an entrant.

Those fact that Council members were running though was again quite public.
i dont think anyone on the council would want very much to take the device away from their fellow council-brethren; as a result, the council members stood a MUCH better chance of getting one than, say, itsnotabigtruck.

you are not free of the abuse of power; you were on the council that awarded itself 16% of the prize.

whether this is because of altruistic-but-misplaced human emotion, or still-very-human greed, its still unfair.

my central point is NOT how-come-such-and-such-didnt-get-one-theyre-great, its what can we do now to fix the quite obvious unfairness. its never too late to do whats right.
__________________
~ teleshoes ~
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wolke For This Useful Post: