The process was not the one we intended to implement whether or not we challenged it (besides, it is difficult to challenge authority)
If “n of N” was the process that we intended to implement from the beginning, that discussion was not made public.
Therefore, the MGRC election is NOT ACCOUNTABLE or it is NOT TRANSPARENT, one or the other. (and it likely entrenched insiders, who are defending result despite protocol deviations).
On Consent
For example, if one is abused, and they learn to deal with it, is it still abuse? Of course, it is abuse!!
What if the victim didn’t challenge the perpetrator? What if the abuse wasn’t reported because of reputational or financial risk? Of course, it is still abuse!
Likewise, if this election got mishandled, and we learn to deal with the results, was it still mishandled? Of course, it is! What if someone didn’t challenge the result? What if the result wasn’t challenged because of reputational or financial risk? Of course, it was still mishandled!
Finally, did anyone consent to the process change? If there was consent, it would not be abuse. I didn’t see any public discussion about it…
So, either it was unaccountable or it was not transparent. We would only ignore this for the sake of expediency.
