Hi Sam! I have very low tolerance for what I perceive as unjust. The mere existence of the TC and any of its invocations implies (to me) an instance of constitutionally sanctioned injustice and imbalance in the project, in addition of increased deterioration of the project's social fabric.
In this case I was not trying to discuss the mandate (sorry for not making that clear, or for possibly making it seem otherwise), as I consider any mandate coming from the TC to be final; there is still the requirement that I pointed out some time ago for a supermajority in a GR to overturn a TC decision; and given that I do not see myself ever getting involved with the TC out of my own volition, so it would go against my principles to try to appeal or discuss officially with the TC. My mails should be considered more as a protest than anything else, I guess. I agree I've probably used a stronger tone than it is usual in me, but only intended against decisions and institutions, not persons; and I am aware this might be somewhat self-defeating. In the same way as refusing to engage in the policy process as a matter of protest is also self-defeating. I replied to Josselin, because I felt he was framing me as a menu supporter, when I come to this from a neutral ground when it comes to the formats, my complaint lies elsewhere, so I wanted to make my motives clear. I do think I understand the reasons for that specific TC mandate. I do not think the people behind the TC acted in bad faith when deciding on it. I still think it is wrong, and something that IMO would never had reached even rough consensus if it had not been forced from above. Also to me any TC decision even if technically right and sound, is wrong by definition due to the way it needed to be reached and enacted, so in this case it feels doubly wrong. I guess you will perceive this as me trying to have the last word again, and I do not think this was probably the reply you were looking for, but it is the one I've got, sorry. Thanks, Guillem
