<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Hi Nishal,<br><br>I did not use "at discretion" but rather "whether at discretion of board or not". If you have only seen "at discretion" there is no way you will understand my entire message. Go back to the email with "whether at discretion of board or not" to get the full meaning of my message. <br><br>Enjoy the reading!!!<br><br><br>Marcus<br><br><br><div>> From: nishal@controlfreak.co.za<br>> To: community-discuss@afrinic.net<br>> Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 12:24:49 +0200<br>> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Council of Elders<br>> <br>> On 13 Jul 2016, at 11:30, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote:<br>> <br>> > The delay in considering the appointment of Mr. Ntege to the CoE, <br>> > whether intentional or not, whether at discretion of board or not, it <br>> > is showing the dysfunctional characteristic of the board.<br>> <br>> i respectfully disagree. if it’s “at discretion” as opposed to <br>> “automatic” - which, btw, was a key point in the original message - <br>> then there is no “dysfunction” as you allude to.<br>> <br>> i agree with you that this is probably something that the Board *should* <br>> have discussed sooner; but *not* discussing a *discretionary* item is <br>> hardly dysfunctional. i run several working groups, that often have <br>> “optional” items that stay on the agenda for more than a year, <br>> *because they are optional*, and by their definition, do not get <br>> precedence over more pressing matters, in the limited time that the <br>> group meets to discuss matters.<br>> <br>> so, call a spade, a spade, eh?<br>> <br>> <br>> > The consequence of this delay of a year is in bad taste which does not <br>> > build trust. Moreover, this delay has also generated on this mailing <br>> > list some unpleasant acrobatic interpretations of the section 16.1 of <br>> > the bylaw, which understanding is obvious.<br>> <br>> again, you imply one thing, when the truth is another. there is rarely <br>> “obvious” understanding, and this discussion should have proven <br>> that.<br>> * there is that, which the text (bylaws) says, and needs to be read <br>> literally<br>> * there is clearly disagreement on what this written text means to some<br>> * there is scope for improvement of the text<br>> <br>> or, perhaps not? perhaps it’s literal enough to mean, exactly what it <br>> says? as a step moving forward, it would be useful, if, those that <br>> think that this text needs to be changed, submit new text (like some of <br>> the really good proposals that this list has already seen!).<br>> <br>> <br>> > Let us wait for the outcome of the board meeting<br>> <br>> yes indeed, and let us respect, and support the outcome of this <br>> decision.<br>> <br>> meanwhile, the challenge for new (better) text, still stands.<br>> <br>> —n.<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Community-Discuss mailing list<br>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<br>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<br></div> </div></body>
</html>