Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 3026316" data-attributes="member: 5">Naw.  There are plenty of the (supposed) 50,000 + pool of potential committee members who are capable of great depth of critical thought.  Many of them do it for a living in other, sometimes very similar, fields and could easily apply it to the task.  I wouldn't discount them so easily if I were you, despite our obvious bias to our friends who are here on staff.  It might be interesting to have a committee completely unattached to EN World with some contingent of oversight from a staff reviewer or three.Well, that's really part of the problem.  The public can just as eaily each pick one, two or three people who wind up on the committee but intend for their votes to signify they want at least two people who have never been on there but once the full tally comes up, it can be all the same people from a previous year.  The voting process, itself, restricts, to some extent, the possibility of new blood being on the committee despite that possibly being the actual intent of the voters.  This, of course, doesn't assume that anyone who doesn't make it would be inappropriate, which is a charge I would be unwilling to make.</blockquote>