Then I mis-read you, and am sorry. The feeling I took away from what you said was that you were implying we threw things away and did not do research.

While the wiki doesn't detail each pain-staking step we took, it should really be common sense that we used the information given (at a minimum) to evaluate applicants.

That's fair. To which I now ask back of you: What more would you have liked us to have done to make this process more transparent? Given the links above to the Council blog, meeting logs where this was all discussed weeks ago, and the wiki on the CA itself, what did we miss?

I seriously want to know, because I am attempting to increase the transparency of the Council. You'll note, it's my name on each blog post, and I'm doing the minutes each week. Also, I'm the one replying here. I'm trying...

But this is a two way street. For this to work, people must read the minutes I create, and bother following what Council is doing. It's hardly fair to say Council is not being transparent, when in fact we are, but you are not putting in the effort to even look at it. Transparency is irrelevant if you don't bother looking.

While I don't want to discuss individual choices, I'm happy to tell you the mechanic that was used. The process that was followed was essentially this:

• Each Council member took the wiki list and prepared a list of their top 25 entries on Monday.
• Those lists were merged and entrants were scored by number of votes (Council were not allowed to vote for themselves, btw) and a master list was made.
• Each entrant was reviewed in a private real-time meeting, lasting over 5 hours, where at least 4 Council were present at all times.*
• After ranking and a triple-review of the final list by all Council members, the list was made final and publicized.

*I'll note that for the majority of the 5+ hour meeting, all 5 Council were present. One arrived about 30 minutes late for technical reasons, while another had to leave for a short time and provide input in a second exchange afterward. I and two others were there and actively discussing entrants the entire session.