On the other hand, for discussions of group governance, I think the person's
experience/knowledge/etc _are_ relevant, because when it comes to managing
human groups, there are no 'right' answers. (Which is why the Law of
Unintended Consequences often comes into play in human governance decisions.)
That kind of information about someone has some real utility in evaluating
their thoughts about such topics, so _some_ questioning is legitimate.
I don't dispute that, and there may, indeed, be cases where it's more
relevant. In this case, it's not. Leaving names off:
- A suggestion was made that we consider giving each presenter 5
minutes of agenda time.
- One response was given asking what experience with our meetings
gives that person standing to make such a suggestion.
- More than one response was given saying that that, or something very
much like it, had been tried before, and didn't work.
Now, which of those responses was the more useful one? Which is more
in line with how we prefer to conduct our business?
I personally think that when questioning someone's background or
credentials is, in our environment, useful and appropriate at all,
it's only so as a back-stop, not as a first-order consideration.
Barry