Originally Posted by DOGIII

1. I agree that the MEC should be judged based on tangible accomplishments. So far, there have been delays in reaching those milestones, in the shape of postponements and dragging, but if desirable outcomes are reached in the near future - all will be forgotten in my opinion (at-least as far as I am concerned). I am more interested in examining the results, than the process.

2. It was not known that the chair would be leaving when he was appointed as far as I know.

3. I believe in transparency, but I know that the MEC can't always show all their cards at any given time - that would effectively hurt the collective interest more than the group having access to every single detail known to the MEC (within reason).