First, yes, I agree that the way things were setup, an adjudication committee would have been the only option - and that, clearly, that's not something anyone (i.e., the Foundation) would have wanted to do.
But then there is the question of "How could it have been done better?" And, whenever anyone brings that up (as I just did), people start saying things like "No use crying over spilled milk" and "No point going over old ground ...". Which is pretty much valid, except for this: The problem is that when people say you can't change the past, they are, of course, 100% correct (and will remain so, right up until we do, at last, invent a time machine), but unfortunately, this often means that we can't change the present or the future either, because to do so would be to admit that we made a mistake in the past. And people are loath to do that. One of my favorite quotes is:
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
I've already stated how I think the launch should have been done differently, and I do believe that at this point, all of the troubles (e.g., this whole thread) flowed from the way the initial launch was handled. And, no, it is not hindsight. I was posting to that effect before 2/29.
But I am sure it will all work itself out, eventually...
And some folks need to stop being fanboys and see the forest behind the trees.
(One of the best lines I've seen on this board lately)