If you still want to comment on the viability of any of last year's candidates, go to the previous thread. There were so many comments, and some of them were just the same vitriol (I promise to delete any post that I feel detracts from the thread; you can disagree with me, just don't be a boor), that some felt it wasn't worthwhile to add their comments.
How would you like to see the HoF process change?
SCALE: What do you think of the concept of a voter giving a number for each category and adding them up? How would you structure such a scale?
TRANSPARENCY: Consider the ramifications of your suggestion, but what level of public display should the votes and discussions have? The selection process is public (though not too many appear to know all the steps) but all votes and vote totals are hidden. Should the Peer Review totals be publicized? Peer Review voters?
MONEY: This receives zero funding from the UPA and receives little or no effort from paid staff of the UPA. Should staff be involved in this?
VOTERS: In the first year, a small group that came up with the idea made the elections. Afterwards, there was an appointed committee (the Vetting Subcommittee, the ones who do the grunt work) plus all HoF members who cast the final votes. What would be a viable alternative?