After careful and thorough consideration of all responses, I have made the decision to vote against retaining any member of CitComm. This is not a decision I take lightly, as I have tremendous respect for all the nations currently serving on CitComm and for the invaluable contributions they have made to our region, both past and present. My decision is not based on processing times, as I consider that more of a structural issue; rather, it stems from my serious concerns regarding the handling of @New-Halo 's application.
Thatâs unfortunate to hear, but I respect your decision. To briefly note a few things for anybody else, though, who is confused, this really strikes me as a case of Murphyâs law because weâre talking about a situation where:
- an applicant did not disclose past aliases, thus presentingâeven unintentionallyâas a new player while displaying behavior/knowledge well beyond that of a new player;
- it took multiple questionsâfrankly, increasingly simple questions that felt like pulling teethâto trace WA membership throughout the application process, as referenced in the Citizenship Act;
- CitComm discussed detailed reasons for rejection (included in the curing period Griffindor mentioned), but the public reason posted (not included in the curing period) by an individual CitComm member did not include as much detail; and
- An individual CitComm member mistakenly closed an application without any message or reason (which, personally speaking, is hard to notice because of I usually check for pending-application and New Halo unfortunately did not submit a new application for a few months) and, at least personally, I didnât even know at first that the application was closed.
I think itâs easy to attribute things to some âmishandlingâ by CitComm as a whole when itâs actually just understandable but maybe not ideal missteps by a hardworking memberâfrankly situations like this donât occur very often so itâs not like any of us get that much experience. I do want to make clear we want to improve the process in the future. Internally, I flagged the need to post an application closed message when we noticed there was never one posted. Iâm also glad you flagged the rejection message; itâs something I personally missed because we had discussed more detailed reasons internally but is something we can revise our processes to emphasize.
@lordnwahs has requested that I refrain from discussing this matter publicly, and I will honor that request. I have reconsidered my initial position and will be casting my vote differently for various CitComm members. Beyond that, what I have written, I have written.
Pursuant to the requirement of Charter Section IV.(4), which mandates that this vote be called by the Chair of the Assembly or their designee on March 15, we are now at vote!
I thought it was still being reviewed until one day I asked.