In response to what part of what Suzi said, "We should all have a system that removes that pressure from any one person" I think the ED should have a clear back-up person, that "contact anyone on the EC to answer questions" has shown itself to be too vague. (If I were waiting for an answer, having done that, I would still be waiting).
Pressure on one person *is* too much. I advocate more than one voice box.As well as cool towels for the rest of us (as per Jesse's list on another thread).
Okay, but that is a tangent.
I really hear a need for a proposal.
On that other thread, I think Syd brought up a list for one.
"A clear, identifiable, system which would produce the same results everytime"
What about a randomizer? A computer program that takes into account distance, no-venue, etc.? Could one be written like one used to random-draw slam order? We could try it alongside of an actual list and see if the results are about the same?
Also, it would only be, for, say, what, 5-10 slots?
Karen, I hate to, but I disagree here.
First, you're blending two separate issues: workload on one person (which is why registration had an issue this year...that was rectified quickly, mind you) and one person determining the eventual outcome of the competitor list to everyone's satisfaction, which was never going to happen no matter what the system is. The minute there were people on the wait list, one of them was going to say, "Hey, can we expand the tournament? And who gets to decide this, anyway?" It happened when Steve used the same system as ED for years and it's happening now. This isn't a new system.
Which brings me to the other impression you describe, which is that you "hear a need for a proposal". I disagree. You hear a fraction of people asking for none, but I wouldn't rush to call that a "need". Nor should we dismiss the fact that nothing has been said about this so-called need for three months after hundreds of posts about it ending in November. If there was an actual need or even just some basic follow-through this would have been addressed a long time ago when it was hot, or shortly after when something could still be done or at least investigated. Some of the people who were clamoring for this "need" haven't said anything about it since, and a couple of them are running for EC. I don't see not having followed-up on generating a publicly-decried proposal in their bids. I'm not taking swipes here. I'm saying don't call something a need just because a handful of people were unhappy about something for a brief period of time. A need exhibits its necessity on an ongoing basis, across many mouths and probably numerous effects. This ain't one of them.
I am sorry this thread has gotten so far off track. I would recommend anyone who still cares about coming up with a system in time for the next event to do so in the thread that already exists for this express purpose.