Originally Posted by kokonutz

I keep seeing that 'political gamesmanship' concept thrown around and it mystifies me.

Here is EXACTLY how my thinking went (and if you could read the private TB you'd see that this is true):

I thought Randy made a poor decision (although this is his prerogative).

I was disappointed that Randy didn't consult the TB before making the decision especially since the TB was already discussing the 'problem(s)' (although this is his prerogative).

As a member of the TB I felt that the TB should go on the record regarding his decision one way or the other (although Randy is under no obligation to listen).

Wanting to as respectful of Randy as possible I did two things:
1) Put the super-majority requirement on asking Randy to reconsider rather than on affirming his decision.

2) Made it clear that the goal was a suggestion to Randy rather than anything stronger such as a demand.


When I ran for TB I promised to speak and vote my mind and to do my best to make sure that the TB goes on the record on reasonable issues rather than letting them linger in 'discussion limbo.' Because without read-only access to the private TB forum that's the only way (aside from wading through hundreds of posts) that posters can know whether and how their TB members are representing them and that's with a formal motion and vote.

I hope that clarifies rather than muddies!