Yesterday I published an opinion piece in which I attempted to dismantle the community's present understanding of "experience" and to apply it to the approaching GUM election. Shortly afterwards, I realised that this article was a bit confusing and perhaps not entirely successful. In this article I will add a few points of clarification.
The most important point that I was trying to make, in arguing that experience is not as important as it is held to be, is that experience is not inherently tied to the various undesirable qualities possessed by some micronationalists who happen to also be inexperienced. For example -- Bradley of Dullahan's term as Chair was lacking due to M. of Dullahan's disorganisation and to his insistence on "less bureaucracy"; this is not related in any way to his lack of experience with the organisation, as these problems could have been remedied with better organisation and better guiding principles. Likewise, Yaroslav Mar's willingness to target political opponents was a result of shortcomings in his political inclination and his character; were these problems not present, it is likely that his term would have been more successful. In both cases, it is difficult to demonstrate that having spent more time in the GUM would in itself have solved these problems.
It is in applying this theory to the generational shift currently taking place in the community that my argument breaks down. For one, most of the micronations that I classified as "new nations" have been in the community for at least a year and sometimes nearly two (as in the case of Burnham); Ashukovo, for instance, and many of the nations migrating from Wikia, are significantly younger in this community. I seem to have combined two generational events -- one taking place about a year ago and involving the CSP nations, the other taking place over the past year and involving completely new nations as well as some Wikia nations. Further, these second-wave nations' representatives in the community do not necessarily possess the qualities needed to successfully lead the GUM or any other major community institution; my argument about experience, then, is purely hypothetical, at least for now.
The significance of these two waves of new nations, combined with a moderate decline in activity among the community's older nations, is that the center of activity in the community is shifting to the nations of these two waves. Thus, the GUM must also move towards these nations in order to maintain in the community's center of activity and to thus remain relevant. This was supposed to be the main takeaway from yesterday's piece, but in retrospect I did not emphasise it enough.