I think it's quite sad that the threads regarding the amendments and proposals up for discussion at Thursday's AGM are closed. It's at this stage of the process of management of the society that it's most important that these topics are open to discussion because stifling debate and discussion leads to lower quality decisions.

There may be a legitimate fear of flame wars and other related behaviour, but one could mitigate this simply by stopping anonymous comments on the forum or removing offensive posts as per the usual guidelines for moderation.

By taking away the right of members of the society to actively debate the merits of different candidates and proposals on the very threads that hold the documents, we limit the involvement of users. I know people can have discussions on other threads (like this one), but that is not the same thing. There may be a wish to not have discussions about particular candidates because this can be seen as overly personal, but I think that if you're standing for what is a public position, you have to be open to it. Whether it's online or casual chat, people will gossip and discuss candidates and proposals. That's what an open society means. If the society really aims to be inclusive, it shouldn't presume that users can't self moderate in any way, and I think, should encourage the voice of the masses, whether this is ugly and inelegant or well-spoken and clear. Dissent is healthy, but censorship through silence doesn't help anything.