After going through all the materials provided to the NomCom for the PASS Board of Directors, I think I can say unequivocably that it's the procedure, and not the perception of the procedure that is the issue. Here's why I say that:
Walking through this, I made a tweet to Stuart Ainsworth, who has been just flat out awesome standing up as the point man to take the community's fury. This is the clincher which led me to the conclusion that the procedure is flawed:
Note: I'm not saying anything about the people involved. I'm not implying malicious behavior or ill will by any NomCom member towards any candidate. I'm pointing out that the process is more subjective than it should be and it has obviously led to results which are inconsistent with, at the very least, a lot of the vocal folks in the community. And that means the procedure needs to be fixed. Now, if the procedure is broke, what does that say about what we should do with the candidates who were "delisted" from the vote through the process? I don't know. If the procedure is flawed, and I believe it is, I'm of the mindset to put 'em all on and let the community decide. But that essentially means you've thrown the hard work and personal sacrifice of the NomCom out the window. If you read the overview doc, you can get an idea of what they were told with respect to the time commitment. That's certainly something we shouldn't forget. They volunteered for this. And I will continue to believe each one did his or her level best unless someone can conclusively show me otherwise.