Hello there!
I think, even in the field of variants, that a review would be a very cumbersome and overwhelming process if it was open to 3000 members to chip in their comments un-filtered. I much prefer a process where we advertise it’s happening and members can go through their NTOs (who are all invited to the discussion) as a bit of a summary / filter step. Now, you might see that as not 100 % transparent, but I think it means that we can conduct the review in a timely manner while everyone has a route to contributing. Without it, we may never filter out the noise from the signal and make any progress.
On ‘experts’ - in this case we have 5-8 TOs that run variant events all year. I guess they are the guys who will know if there are issues. It’s right they are heavily involved (if they want to be)!
LD - I guess I meant it was an interesting discussion all in. I’ve not seen it elsewhere. I think LD is a tricky position to define, so that should probably be on the new LD’s list of things to do. And maybe it should be on our list as a committee to talk about the position in more philosophical terms and think where it should end up? I don’t know off the top of my head.
And thanks for the kind words!