I understand your position, but I respectfully disagree. Selecting leadership based on immutable characteristics like race, gender or sexuality rather than merit and contributions is misguided and prejudiced, even if motivated by a desire for representation.
The current leaders' "lives & experiences" very much inform their work - their experience contributing to and building the project. What's irrelevant and presumptuous is assuming their race, gender, etc. make them unfit or that "people with similar experiences" (i.e. the same demographics) would necessarily lead better. The slander is in attacking and attempting to de-legitimize the board not based on their actions or competence, but on their identities. That's textbook ad hominem.
Inclusion means welcoming people of all backgrounds, not enforcing demographic quotas or judging people's fitness based on identity rather than ability. If you have substantive concerns about board decisions or project direction, by all means raise them. But leave identity politics out of it and focus on the issues. Presuming leaders can't serve the community well because of innate traits is its own form of prejudice.
The only real criticism of concern was the military contracts and a conflict of interest, which I believe is valid and needs discussion, the rest just seems like personal attacks meant to further some unrelated agenda.
I don't believe that the boards composition for engineering and technological organizations or projects should be chosen based on the results of measuring skulls, genetics or what partners they openly prefer for sexual intercourse, that seems unrelated to the work.
The slander against the board is quite obvious and I believe you're being disingenuous.
The current leaders' "lives & experiences" very much inform their work - their experience contributing to and building the project. What's irrelevant and presumptuous is assuming their race, gender, etc. make them unfit or that "people with similar experiences" (i.e. the same demographics) would necessarily lead better. The slander is in attacking and attempting to de-legitimize the board not based on their actions or competence, but on their identities. That's textbook ad hominem.
Inclusion means welcoming people of all backgrounds, not enforcing demographic quotas or judging people's fitness based on identity rather than ability. If you have substantive concerns about board decisions or project direction, by all means raise them. But leave identity politics out of it and focus on the issues. Presuming leaders can't serve the community well because of innate traits is its own form of prejudice.
The only real criticism of concern was the military contracts and a conflict of interest, which I believe is valid and needs discussion, the rest just seems like personal attacks meant to further some unrelated agenda.