… out of the pool of candidates.
The pool of candidates = N.
The prescription is quite clear. We deviated from what was prescribed and without any reasoning or public discussion as to why.
Whether its incompetence or foul play, we should not be willing to change the voting mechanism without due process.
We should not accept the results of an experiment if it was not conducted appropriately, and we should not use those results as the initial conditions from which to extend and entrench decision-making for years.
So, the voting mechanism was clearly changed yet we are to assume it was done so accidentally? Why did it change?
If there is a reason for the change, reference it.
If there isn’t, we failed the protocol.
AFAIK, the change happened behind-the-scenes. Ring the alarm.
@moderator, please keep my replies in MGRC Diversity thread as I am concerned the voting mechanism was co-opted to favor insiders