I'd be inclined to just put up one thread with all the people who are due to join.
We can't just do what we're inclined to do. We have to follow the process we so laboriously arrived at. What the hell did I just devote the last couple of months of my life to, if we're not even going to follow the process we decided on with so much blood, sweat and tears?
Each petitioner gets their own announcement thread; each petitioner is considered separately.
I don't see the need to start seperate threads for each member in this initial batch.
We did not set up one system for some people and another system for other people. If you did not see the need to start separate threads for petitioners, the time to say so would have been when we were writing the amendment.
At a later obviously there will be a thread for each petitioner but for the moment I think we should just use common sense and not tie our hands behinds our backs because "it says in the charter".
The common sense should have been applied in the committee when we were coming up with the process. We don't just disregard the process we've set up. If you think the process we chose 'ties our hands behind our backs', the time to bring that up would have been while we were coming up with it.
I think we should just use common sense and not tie our hands behinds our backs because "it says in the charter".
I'm really getting sick of the deragatory use of that phrase. Do we handle the Ranger flow a certain way because 'it says it in the charter'? Do we follow a certain procedure for voting because 'it says it in the charter'? Would we just set aside those processes because we found them inconvenient?
Look, if you think the process is unwieldy, that's the committee's fault, and it's a little late to point it out now.