Personally I dont have a problem with having a large number of reps as has been posted. I believe that they are all dedicated to the cause and willing to work hard for the benefit of this sport.

But Andy first said
Should any of our members wish to object to the above proposal, please post your comments here

to which Mike posted an objection - not a vicious objection but an objection nonetheless:
I believe the roboteers have the right to choose who represents them, there should be an election to select 8 or 9 from the list (depending on which gives an odd total)

This alone should be enough to generate a bit of discussion, give it a little time to see if any other roboteers still wish the rep positions to go to a vote. Therefore I can understand Mikes reaction when merely 12 hours later it was declared:
Welcome to all the new reps, I am looking forward to working with you.
The new committee has some important constitution changes to make, so the first meeting will be a busy one

This gives the impression that his objection has been discarded and that members€™ views are not worth much. This can quite easily not be the case, I€™m not accusing anyone of doing this deliberately but even though you may think it petty, you should at least understand why Mike commented on his feelings about a lack of democratic behaviour in the election process.

I have to ask though, why does his opinion on this suddenly mean he potentially has a vendetta with certain member roboteers who have put themselves up for rep positions? While I said I don€™t have a problem with a large committee I was slightly surprised to read that the number of positions had jumped from five up to whoever-has-put-themselves-forward-due-to-their-self-nomination-being-an-indicat ion-of-their-dedication. I have no problem with any one of the people who have gone forward as reps; some of them I know, some of them I don€™t but I€™m confident each and every one of them will do a fine job serving on the committee. However I am of the opinion it would perhaps be better if election guidelines (5 rep positions - going to vote) as set out in the first post of this thread were adhered to.
For those of you accusing him of trying to upset the balance or unharmonise the FRA with such comments, I€™m sorry, but you are no better by implying that he has issues with current potential reps.

How can the democratic rights of the roboteers be any diminished by having a larger committee?
I believe Mike€™s issue is not so much with the fact that the committee would be large (he states this himself by saying €˜the more the better€™) but more with the fact that when he said he€™d prefer the option of voting for reps not to be removed, such a request seemed to fall on deaf ears and that there wasn€™t much time given for other members to express their opinions before indications arose that all twelve candidates would make the committee regardless.