I understand saying that Leads are community members and are not selected by NF, even if I disagree in principle. We can have a discussion about what it means to ‘choose’ or if the pool of possible candidates is relevant to the ‘choosing’.
i.e. we can have different opinions and it’s all good.
However, what you are saying in the quote above is, sincerely, playing with semantics. Why not have rigorous and open discussions in which terms and definitions are not used to fog the discussion?
What OP is proposing is that the ‘team’ working on the rules of engagement are later stopped from being considered to rule the NDC.
Is OP pretenting there are leads when in fact there are not? No…
Then why stop the community from discussing this matters? No one is being accused of anything, it is ok being a Lead in the CWG, it is ok having direct channels to NF while being a community member, it is ok having access to info that is not accessible to the wider community, people are just having an open discussion, isn’t what allowing a community to participate is?
See, James here is clear about it. He is a Lead and so he thinks his vote is ‘compromised’ on this specific poll. Therefore he didn’t vote. He still can, as even politicians can vote for themselves in most democracies. The way I see it is that he is open to discussing the matter.
He is still a community member. People can be multiple things at once and it takes honesty to talk about these matters, because ‘roles’ change and so responsibilities also change. If we prevent discussions or minimize them we are alienating people…