<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 12, 2016, at 22:01 , Omo Oaiya <<a href="mailto:Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net" class="">Omo.Oaiya@wacren.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 July 2016 at 21:03, Mike Silber <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:silber.mike@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">silber.mike@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Nishal +1<br class="">
<br class="">
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. <br class=""></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
I don't think the community would want an unable or unwilling CoE member, or a convict.<br class=""></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">No community would. We want them because of their experience as former Chairs </div><div class="">I read the 'open to' in 16.1 as former chairs are willing to consider or be considered. So some might decline or be denied</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br class="">
So I cannot see how automatic appointment could be implied.</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="">This is what bothers me. We don't yet have 6 past chairs and we are discriminating without reason on appointment to CoE? How does this improve trust?</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div></div>Omo,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You are claiming facts not in evidence.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The board chair clearly stated that the matter has not yet been considered by the board. This is not discrimination, it is a lack of action in either direction, positive or negative. He further noted that it will be on the agenda at the next board meeting.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Claiming discrimination when there clearly isn’t any such thing going on is nonsensical.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Finally, appointment to the CoE is at the discretion of the board. They are free to invite a past chair or not entirely at their discretion and nothing requires them to explain their reasoning to the community. If you don’t like their decision, vote for different board members next time there is an election.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Personally, given the manner in which Badru stepped down from the chairmanship and the subsequent incidents leading to his departure from the board, I would say that the board has more than ample reason if they choose not to invite him to join the CoE. However, I respect that this is a decision entirely at their discretion and I will accept whatever decision they make.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">The purpose of the CoE is to advise the board. The board must be free to choose who it does or does not want to receive advice from.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>