[Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Council of Elders

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Jul 14 02:57:56 UTC 2016


> On Jul 13, 2016, at 13:26 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 13 Jul 2016 22:46, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Mark’s clarification is exactly what I was referring to when I said that I
> > believed the board had adequate reasons not to place Badrue on the CoE.
> >
> >
> 
> Ya'all need to stop being subjective... Elkins, Owen.
> 
> You are all so subjective that you even missed the very objective reasons behind this entire thread.
> 
> I dont think Badru himself cares if he is on that CoE list or not. He has continued to contribute to this community objectively less the endless charactee assassination unleashed unto him.
> 
> What this thread has actually been about was to bring to the attension of the board and the board chair a number of concerns.
> 
> - Disregard of the bylaws.
> 
There was no disregard of the bylaws… Objectively this is true and your continued subjective claims that it occurred are specious and seem intended to foment distrust of the board.

> - Sweeping under the carpet of certain issues.
> 
Please enumerate these issues. Objectively, we cannot evaluate what you are talking about if you won’t specify it.
> - Subjective discremination and this is a fact. Its a fact because the very board which was supposed to discuss the CoE issue and inform the community like 1 year ago... never bothered too.
> 
Huh? I don’t understand your statement here. Objectively:

	1.	The board has no obligation to discuss the CoE issue at all.
	2.	The board has no required timeframe in which to discuss said issue.
	3.	Appointment to the CoE is entirely at the discretion of the board.
	4.	Objectively, that is what the bylaws say.

Calling our objective statements subjective because you think that somehow makes it less credible is disingenuous at best.

> - The board never even considered what the community would think whether they appointed badru or not yet the bylawys are clear on this though some have tirelessly worked hard to try interprete texts.
> 
What, exactly, is it you think that the bylaws clearly say?

I posted the bylaws themselves (the entire section 16 which covers CoE) in my first post on this subject.

I made no attempt to hide, obfuscate, or otherwise confuse the issue.

I stated objectively the clear plain english meaning of the text as written.

I agree that the text could be better written. Someone else posted a challenge that I should provide suggested replacement text, so I will do that now.

For reference, again, here is the current Section 16:

16 THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS
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.
16.1 Membership to the Council shall be opened to such former chairpersons who served at least one full term in that capacity.
16.2 First in first out principle will be used to ensure that the number of members of the council does not exceed six (6).
16.3 On the completion of their tenure of office, members of this Council shall retire and not be eligible for re-appointment.
16.4 This Council shall have an advisory role and shall provide help and assistance to the Chair or the entire Board.

Now, here is my proposed rewrite. My text still carries the exact same meaning as the above text, but I believe provides greater clarity and reduces ambiguity.

16 THE COUNCIL OF ELDERS

There shall be a Council of Elders appointed by the Board comprising a maximum of six (6) former chairpersons of AFRINIC who are no longer members of the board. Their advisory role is commensurate with their experience leading the organization as former Chairs.
16.1 Membership in the Council shall be comprised of former chairpersons who served at least one full one-year term (the Chair is elected every year by the Board) as chair and who are then appointed by resolution and at the discretion of the current board.
16.2 First in first out principle will be used to ensure that the number of members of the council does not exceed six (6).
16.3 Once a members time on the council ends, they shall retire and shall not be eligible for re-appointment to the council.
16.4 The role of this Council is as an advisory body to the board and their service is at the pleasure of the Chair and other members of the board.
> -This level of disregard is uncalled for.
> 
I am not sure what you mean by disregard. I do not see any disregard. Then I don’t see any of the other things you seem so thoroughly upset about, either, but since you refuse to provide any objective documentation of same at least so far, it is difficult to know if this is just poor observation on my part, or, some other issue on your side.

> - The current status quo is really unfortunate.
> 

In what way?

It seems to me that the board is doing what needs to be done and focusing on the true priorities. It seems to me that they have managed to remain responsive to community requests while remaining focused and continuing to make meaningful progress on the most pressing needs of the organization.

I will admit that that last part is subjective, but do you have any objective measure by which my statement is false? If you have a subjective contrary opinion, that’s fine too, but in that case, it’s simply that we both disagree which is entirely possible among men of good conscience without it meaning that either of them has any form of ill will or lapse in judgment.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160713/2bb1f083/attachment.html>


More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list