It’s not an argument. It’s a fact.

That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.

My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That’s literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.

Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.

Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you're not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it's the only evaluation mechanism.

If it were , there'd be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.

Shhhh, don't overload them with reason, it's rare to see this kind of naivete in it's natural form.

edit: some salty salty lurkers around today, come on in, the waters fine, i'm sure you have coherent arguments to add.

That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.

I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.

it can’t be judged without well-defined critical, no.

That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.

So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?

seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I’d like to know because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none.

Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.

anyone can run for school board.

Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.

Just to be clear, you're arguing that merit/competence can't be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?

that is my bad for assuming the /s was evident

Yeah, just like star trek

edit: /s , because evidently it wasn't clear

If we are nature, anything we make is natural.

Unless you are saying that for it to be natural it has to he made using a biological process, perhaps inside the body?

I'd say it's less a legal fight than it is a fight for control , using the law this time.

Pretending that what people are upset about is the field rather than the pre-capitulation is not helping the cause.

Most of the hate isn't for the technical implementation of a field, though some FOSS people are upset at that as well.

You can sidestep the legal fight by not serving the places where it is illegal.

That's doesn't necessarily align with the goals of whatever project, but it is possible.

As expected

It's subjective and context based, on a person to person basis and in the aggregate societal norms.

It's the same as if you were talking about whatever broader group you were personally into. Just with the erotic attraction part removed.

If you, personally, have no criteria for judging you can try and work with what you understand the conversation partners tastes to be.

If you are talking to someone you think appreciates Hollywood hot then you can way "they are hot" with the understanding that you are commenting from a shared context of hot.

If you were to say "I think they are hot" that's a different context and implies you, personally, think they are hot.

To be clear, neither of those explicitly states an erotic attraction, though it can be taken that way, depending on the context.

Communication is hard.