325. It usually appears advisable for individual members of the EDRB to avoid interviews with the press. Any imprecision or apparent contradiction may give rise to problems that go beyond the need to explain the scope or meaning of a ruling. If it is essential to give interviews, it may be desirable to limit them to a single person or electoral staff member officially designated by the EDRB, whose remit is to limit any remarks to stating and explaining the legal reasons upheld by the majority. 326. Once a matter is resolved by an EDRB, the reasons that prevailed and matter in terms of being explained to society right away are those of the majority. This is entirely independent of the right of the members of the EDRB who are in the minority to formulate a dissenting view which is included in the judgement and may be disseminated later, for example, in a specialized or academic journal. Extensive debate over points of disagreement during the session of the EDRB is essential in order to clarify and refine the thinking of the members in reaching a judgement. However, once the EDRB reaches its decision it is preferable not to address the issue again publicly, unless another case is heard that makes this unavoidable. Few things weaken an EDRB more than publicly airing differences among its members without reference to a specific case. Moreover, the message sent to society, if this happens, is confusing, contradictory, and vulnerable to political manipulation. 327. The vocation of service, a commitment to professional excellence, and dedication to electoral justice and democratic values all contribute to the credibility and prestige of an EDRB. Its internal and external activities should reflect the pluralistic composition of society and gender balance, as well as promoting equality and equity on a non-partisan basis. Its operation should be inclusive, adopting a gender perspective and reflecting ethnic diversity. 328. Reporting in a timely fashion on the volume and quality of the work carried out, including the scrupulous and transparent administration of public resources, creates incentives for the members of the top-level organ and all its personnel to offer an electoral justice service of the highest quality. It also establishes standards for the other groups involved in elections, including national and international observers, the academic sector and the media, to follow in order to emulate its performance. 113 6. Principles and guarantees of EDR systems should not only be included in the judgement or decision: in particularly high-profile or sensitive cases it could be considered good practice for them to be disseminated in a communiqué or a press release. There is a difficult balance to be achieved here which requires technical skill in ensuring both that the position taken in the judgement is not distorted and that the technical content of the judgement is accessible to and comprehensible by broad sections of society.