On Mar 4 2022, at 4:24 am, Martin Owens <doctormo@geek-2.com> wrote:
Re: Modifications to the job posting

A further vote isn't technically necessary since no changes have been
made outside of the agreed process. The process approved included
adding the contact and other details required by the SFC. This is
because contact information, and exact scheduling is an implementation
detail which was anticipated to be filled in and documented in the PDF
v4 of the vote passed.

I would say that the process was written imprecisely if that's what you believe it said. Putting something in "the right format" is much different than adding sections, but since we're going to have to modify it anyway that point is moot.

I would be happy to vote in favour of additional language to clarify
the contract nature of the job. But please get this vote done right
away. I'll keep the posting in draft until at least next Tuesday to
give you time.

Okay, I'll try to figure that out. I'm a bit worried about contract work significantly reducing the pool of applicants, but it is more important to be clear than anything.

Re: Recruitment of Panel volunteers
There has been no selection process. Recruitment has been done by
asking trustworthy and long standing people in the project to step
forward and taking the first people who did so. This gives us a fair
bit of randomness:

I would disagree. Having one person chose based on who they consider "trustworthy" sounds more like Oligarchy to me. Just putin' that out there. Seems like favoritism.