On Wed, Jun 26, 2024, 3:14 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is a non-sequitur, as Nat's letter was not a vote against sharing power. It proposed first steps to share power, however incomplete, and ways to address concerns with other steps laid out in the current charter text.

But the letter was certainly confusing, as you illustrate. I hope someone will clarify how the Board envisions a progression of power-sharing and capacity-building (likely in the form of a Council) to be able to take on more and more complex decisions.

Chris said it well: to provide their independent judgement in the best interest of the mission.  Including, on occasion, not rubber-stamping proposals put before them, bu sending them back for further revision..

Sam.