I did not ignore the answer and as there has been no evaluation of that addition by the board and the addition has not been submitted to the expert for evaluation I followed your recommendation and voted against it.
The fact that he replaced your suggestion, which includes the text you re-added, show that he didn’t really find your addition to be meaningful in a public procurement context and that he advised against your approach.
While it’s understandable the PoV that the ESC should be a neutral ground for exchanges of information of a technical nature, there are also rules that need to be followed in relation to public procurement which include the management of conflict of interests and influences from members of the ESC/board which are affiliated with potential bidders.
That’s the same discussion we had also in relation to the developers proposal I made which took in consideration the expert advice we received but that you circumvented by sending out another proposal that doesn’t include or even takes in consideration that advice.
So in a way the matter has been discussed, expert advice has been received but no lessons have been learned.
Please do check the documents and emails we all have before making these types of statements as you will notice that you are mistaken.
The text you and Laszlo wrote and sent the 10/06/2023, which includes the sentence you added again, has been fully replaced the 12/06/2023 as clearly not compatible with a public procurement process.
Where have those changes been discussed and by whom?
Why there are no traces of board engagement in minutes or the directors mailing list?
How is it possible that no other members of the board, apart Emiliano and myself, have not recognised the obvious issue with those changes which have already been advised against?
I instead hope that the board recognises its mistakes and fixes them before moving on making even more mistakes.