Nishal +1 Maybe a hypothetical if I may: what if a former Chairperson were to pass, or to be unable or unwilling to serve on the CoE, or even if they were to be convicted of an offense after their term that would disqualify them as a director.
I don't think the community would want an unable or unwilling CoE member, or a convict. So I cannot see how automatic appointment could be implied. > On 12 Jul 2016, at 21:45, Nishal Goburdhan <nis...@controlfreak.co.za> wrote: > >> On 12 Jul 2016, at 13:26, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> >> Let's get off this micromanagement train. > > yes indeed, let’s! > > >> "There shall be a Council of Elders appointed by the Board comprising a >> maximum of six (6) former chairpersons of AFRINIC who have left the Board. >> Their advisory role is commensurate with their experience leading the >> organisation as former Chairs." > > ok, so, let’s break it down, shall we? > > “there shall be a council” > —> and indeed, there is one. > > “..appointed by the board..” > —> it’s clear to me, that the decision to appoint (or not) is left to the > board, since, those are the words, verbatim, from the bylaws. > > “..comprising a maximum of six former chairpersons..“ > —> so, no more than six. > > t’mam? > > what’s unclear is probably the following: > * there is an _implied assumption_ (the original message in this thread) that > the appointment is automatic. there is no text to support that, so i would > call that assumption incorrect. (should there be text to this effect is a > different question) > * there is an _implied assumption_ that *every* ex-chair should be on the > CoE. there is no text to support that either. > * there is an _implied assumption_ that there is a term limit (in number of > years). it’s true that there is one term limit, but there is no > > >> It goes further in 16.2 to describe how this is managed. >> Shall is authoritative. > > and indeed there is a committee; there’s no debate over that. > but “shall” does not imply “automatic”, as you’re suggesting below. > > >> Any other interpretation is disingenuous. > > really omo? that’s hardly sporting of you. because an interpretation does > not match your own, does *not* make that interpretation incorrect. > i’m simply giving you (this public list) my interpretation. which, to me, > seems correct from *my* reading of the text. > > >> In 16.3, the bylaws restricts the tenure of members to one term and forbids >> re-appointment. If it were not automatic, how is the board expected to >> comply? > > i read this as (and *my* mostly monosyllabical explanation follows) > * there is a council > * it can have up to six ex-chairs > * the council members are appointed by the board > * when it gets to six, the first to join the council has to drop off to keep > this at six > > i count a current council of 4. which means, to me, that the bylaws are > respected. > i don’t know why badru didn’t make the council. (i might even like to, but > that’s besides the point). > but the decision to appoint or not, seems squarely to be the prerogative of > the board. and not an automatic process. > > —n. > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
