The last few months have kept me very busy, and away somewhat from CDS as well, but I do want to offer congratulations and good wishes to the new RA.
After 3 terms as Chancellor, I didn't feel a rush to put my name in again, so long as there are other viable candidates, which I'm pleased to see that there are. Best of luck also to Cindy and Sonja. I very much appreciate the kind words from some who suggested I stand for a fourth term (even from some surprising sources). However, the way I preferred to perform the job, it requires a substantial time commitment to do well, which I wasn't sure I could fairly make at present. Sometimes an active executive is desired ... sometimes it's not. I'm sure the new RA will pick well.
It also was great to see that, with Jon Seattle's help, the new STV voting system worked well. I share the concerns expressed by my old dueling partner Pat Murakami that government rules shouldn't facilitate mob rule. (The government-by-wiki thread is fascinating, too. I hope we get back to discussing the substance of that at some point, free of personality issues.) The STV method did seem to allocate votes among multiple partisans in a good way, and did not bury minority positions. I found it personally pleasing to see that the top two raw score vote-getters in our community, by far, were two people who have been unremittingly positive, communitarian and free of bile or fractiousness: Stui and Lilith. Note that these were *different* people than the top four who got maximal *first-choice* votes (and probably represent the our best-known candidates due to long service): Arria, Gwyneth, Pip & Rose. The way that STV balances both kinds of rankings is a pretty good demonstration of its merit.
A few other issues have popped up (like alts and eminent domain) that promise to be interesting in their own forum threads.
Unfortunately, the new RA's tone seems polarized: this might make rational debate of those topics harder. Several of the leaders are squaring off against each other, there are a lot of personalized attacks on the forums, many declare themselves as having more affinity for their own tribe or faction, than for CDS or the idea of a heterogenous community.
If everyone would consider laying off the personal attacks for a while, that might help. Some who've made their reputation as bullies, know-it-alls or local warlords might find that there are alternative, more positive ways to lead, rather than spending all of one's time undermining others. CDS is not really a huge legislature and nation -- it's a village with a small town council. We all have the duty of trying to live with each other. So constant attacks, accusations and smears don't really help. And they are flying on all sides at the moment.
Watching this, another idea of Pat's keeps coming back to my mind. Is it possible that human nature dictates that 5 or 7 people will work as a group, whereas 11 or 15 naturally divide into squabbling teams? There were some brutal moments in the old 7-member CDS RA ... but maybe fewer, and I did not get the same sense as now, that there are persistent teams, with little interest other than each other's defeat.
Regards JP
