It is very precise. That is exactly what it means. It's it the Chair's duty to ensure an election happens not later than 6 months from the date of the election of the council.

This is why having a chair is important, and although it's usually been +/- a week or so, some of the delays last time were caused by not having a chair who was therefore responsible. (Obviously not having the requisite number of candidates was also a major reason, and one which is considered within the process).

I'm not sure what alternative interpretations there are, and cleaning up the text (technically) requires a referendum.

Imagine it as two houses of parliament/government. The "upper chamber" has longer terms, and so different duties, to the "lower chamber".

AIUI, the Board is responsible for (OTTOMH, YMMV, E&OE) some of the tasks Nokia were previously responsible for. Primarily, that means finding funding sources for maemo.org.

The Council would be responsible for representing the community to the Board, and - with six month terms - be more reactive and deal with less financial, more operational tasks.

You're probably right, there probably isn't a need for both governance structures - but I'd be wary of switching straight away.

So I'd propose option 4:

4. Election for new Board when the community is happy with the proposed governance model. Councillors can stand, and next Council election can still happen as before (not later than 6 months from the last election) if it needs to.

I agree. I think going from a 6 month term to effectively an 18 month term would be viewed as hijacking, but that transition would affect the Council election, and therefore require a referendum IMHO.