Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] missing emails from co-chairs to board

Frank Habicht geier at
Fri Apr 9 05:36:13 UTC 2021


On 09/04/2021 02:04, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:



>> On Apr 8, 2021, at 02:05 , Eddy Kayihura <eddy at

>> <mailto:eddy at>> wrote:

>> ...

>> A)    Can the previous Co-chairs kindly forward the reports in

>> question to the RPD list so that they are on public record?

>> B)   Once the new Co-chairs are in place, the PDWG agrees on how to

>> move forward with the documents;


> Respectfully, I don’t agree with this. If it is shown that the co-chairs

> took an action prior to their recall, then the board

> should proceed as if the documents had been received at that time and

> should act on them accordingly.

Possibly Eddy wrote B) in the understanding that the condition in Owen's
2nd sentence ("it is shown that the co-chairs took an action prior to
their recall") can't be true.

It's really sad (my opinion) that there is not enough clarity [in the
general public] about what was sent to the board. And I see it as
difficult for the board (or CEO) to prove that they didn't receive anything.

> There is no basis

> for allowing the failure to receive the email to derail the process and

> require that it be sent back as a result.

*If* the board didn't receive [any] emails asking for ratification, then
i'd say the process has not yet reached that stage yet where you see it

But *if* any email asking for ratification has reached the board, then I
agree that the board must act on it. Not necessarily in a board meeting
48 hours after the email, but at least in the next meeting from a time
about a week after the email - i'd suggest.

I agree with Eddy in case there was no email to the board.
I agree with Owen's statements, including the "If".


More information about the RPD mailing list