Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I do not want to take part in that game :mad:
I have just one question.

And even my question may sound harsh, but it is just a question:
I would like to ask Jim if he reviewed the bylaws and can give some input to this thread after 4 weeks?
Or even more interesting, if he still is interested to help the Maemo/Harmattan/HiFo community?

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

On March 5, you yourself said that Woody and Jim had been "appointed" and now you say it was something else. The problem here isn't the English language or word games (at least by me). Here's a definition of the word. Do you have any contrary definition that you can point to instead of just arguing?

By the way, I've asked you before to show support for some of your allegations, and you haven't yet. Please do so. Of course, there have been so many incorrect allegations phrased in different ways that I can't address them all, but please do address at least the ones I addressed in this post.

There also seems to be an incorrect perception that Jim didn't indicate his willingness to accept the position within 7 days. But he did. I don't know what is meant by clear "other prerequisites".

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Jim did review the bylaws. Here is his email:

"
>> Looking over the bylaws, I'm unclear if the foundation is actually,
>> legally, incorporated, and whether there are plans to go for 501(c)3
>> status (for this type of org, a 501(c)3 is a better match than a
>> 501(c)6)...
>>
>> Anyway, I'll be back over the weekend so let's try to connect
>> early next week. I know and understand the time crunch, but
>> at present I see no reason why, if asked, I wouldn't like
>> to join and help :)"

As to the very negative sentiments made earlier in this thread, he did after that respond to an email about scheduling a Foundation Board meeting (for what that is worth). I don't know if he is still interested.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I thought I could contribute something after being admin at Symbian Freak for four years but I have realized that it is all about empty words and politics. It's just a lot of talk and no action, it's a shame because I think it will mean that the TMO will go to the grave. :(

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

and time goes by, and by, and by...
While we're all waiting for HiFo to move and finally get stuff DONE, like
approving xes for co-sysop (pending since err, months),
signing contract with Nokia so we finally get control over DNS domain (pending since almost half a year),
signing contract with IPHH (it's been HiFo/Rob who was very nervous to push _us_ to provide such contract which we did despite you never told us what exactly you need, now it's pending since weeks to get signed by HiFo and HiFo puts the agreement with IPHH on peril once more - the contract says it needs to get signed and fees paid max 4 weeks after server moved to IPHH.
We're further waiting for Nokia delivering the "upgrade" hardware that HiFo claimed on their list of fame that they had negotiated with them for our server, while HiFo sits on (last I heard) >4000$ (not drummed up by HiFo exactly) but isn't willing to consider providing the hw upgrades needed.
We're waiting for any clear statement about HiFo's notion regarding community's request to have a re-election. And finally HiFo ignoring council's announcement of such re-election of both bodies a week ago.

You (Rob, HiFo BoD) are seriously complaining about the public image that HiFo creates and the reactions and comments by community that ensue thereof?
HiFo never been an end in itself, it been established for a certain purpose which was NOT to discuss about words and meanings while insisting in HiFo's control of everything and same time watching maemo go down from paralysis introduced by aforementioned behaviour of BoD and the general procrastination of same entity. I'm honestly exasperated by the fact that HiFo/SD69/Rob finds time for nonsensical discussions (which btw I don't know if it's any better when council chair contributes to them) while same time it's obviously impossible for them to find a single date for a single meeting during weeks, to finally get some sh*t done. Or is it simply SD69's last option to block a re-election by making any BoD meeting not happening (http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...68#post1329068)
Rob, you said you're concerned about a situation where - if HiFo was declared flawed by any failure to obey legal obligations - this could void all legal agreements that HiFo signed during being in that flawed state. While I sympathise with the general concern, nevertheless please help me out on which were those legal agreements that HiFo signed so far - it seems I missed them all, could you please list them for us to get this straight?

jOERG
(maemo community and hildon foundation council member)

Bla bla bla...

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

You, sir are exactly not helpful at all, and you're causing the things you moan about.
I'd call this trolling, which takes me as quite funny since:
and

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

SD69: what is wrong with you man?!? You feel you're losing control over your property or what? Dammit, its all about the community over here, not about your lawyers way of thinking. Come on, if you can't contribute... well, just withdraw yourself. Or do what you're expected to do - do your best to help that very same community last. Honestly, I can't believe you're playing that game :( .

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

joerg_rw,
I am sorry for my last comment, it was rude and silly.
It's just so frustrating trying to keep up with your discussions when so many posts are so long that they cover the entire screen. I have tried to read between the lines and try to understand what you are really trying to say in the last month but I've given up.

Nice and flattering nonetheless that you actually read my comments I have written, and also took the time to look them up and copy them here. :)

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Is anyone else developing a feeling of help- and hope-lessness about our community and it's governence, a.k.a the future?

I have no solutions.... and not the time to follow slavishly the ins and outs of HIFO/maemo politics. Please ALL remember that the vast majority of n900 users proilly don't frequent these virtual halls but nonetheless use the repos that are contingent upon the success of this enterprise; and the large number that do visit here spend time posting about problems and solutions. They are the constituency that will suffer if this all unravels, oblivious though some/many/most maybe to the squabbles paraded here.

I judge none of you, really, as I lack the knowledge (and ever more quickly the inclination to know). So this is a plea: find that higher space in your characters to consolidate the considerable gains you have made (kudos to all!) towards a self-governing and sustainable community.

This refers: http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=89560

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

handaxe, all that's going on here *is* *exactly* about what you suggested we should target instead.

[edit] btw I find the term "governance" absolutely inappropriate. There is no governance of maemo community, just entities that *serve*, me and techstaff one of them, council incl me another one, and HiFo BoD a third one. If you want to understand anything of what's going on here, or you are just worried about techstaff maybe not being able to continue the brilliant work they did so far to deliver this forum as well as all the other maemo.org infra services on a high quality and availablity level for you, then you *need* to get a bit more involved in what we're discussing or arguing about here.
/j

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Been waiting for Jagielski to weigh in for scheduling the Board meeting, like in the last Board, I often waited for Board Chairman Samoff to schedule a meeting. Look at my actual record of attending Board and Council meetings instead of some misleading innuendo and you will see it is very good. I acted within 7 days to find and appoint two qualified Directors so that the Foundation could proceed. Of course that bit of contribution was twisted into a negative with complaints that there should be a special election of the Board seats vacated by Samoff and Galvez instead of the appointments, which complaints have been a terrible distraction and waste of time, and then the same people turn around and complain that the Board of appointees (who they complained should defer to Directors elected in special elections in the future) haven't done anything yet. I asked Jagielski in good faith to help out and he agreed. But I wouldn't be surprised if he is looking at the scene and he might resign too.

Joerg's post is full of half-truths and misplaced blame. If I try to squeeze in the time to respond and to correct everything, it's a half-response and just more grist for the toxic mill. And this negative politics and dysfunction is going on continuously, all starting pretty much from the day Joerg showed up on council election scene. It's a terribly destructive approach - throwing out so much negativity and mud so often that some of it eventually sticks in the minds of some people.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I really don't know what to say, other than state that I'm feeling disgusted.

Attending council meetings? What? One of them? I'm feeling flattered we had the opportunity to have your highness attend.

For the record, the only board member who has regularly attended council meetings is Woody.

And no, Joerg's post is not full of half truths and misplaced blame.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

The meetings of the council when I was a member. :p

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Guys, please. At this point, it's not about whose fail it is - it will be unpopular conclusion with many, but I'm perfectly sure, that everyone involved in organizing Maemo (myself included) have certain amount of fail in own activity records, even "community heroes" (no irony meant, in naming).

At this stage, it's about "unite and work together" in order to survive. Pretty, pretty please - lets put freakin' bloody' tight red line here:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and start cooperation with carte blanche. If one would ask me, how to define Maemo philosophy in one sentence, it would be... Hard question ;) But, for me, the closest thing for that is:

"People mean well"

So, now, pretty please, everyone, lets assume that all people writing here, are meaning well. It's just a request from me, call it personal one, if you want.

Now, pretty please, could tech staff head write (again, I know, but it doesn't matter now) what actions (from legal entity) are required now, in, lets say, three blocks:
1. urgent
2. soon-to-be-urgent
3. required in long term

...and Board member(s) reply to all points, explaining what steps are/could be made immediately to fullfil those points, and, if appropriate, why some of them can't be made for legal reasons, and why? Then, propose solutions to make it legally doable.

Now, very important thing - please, write all of the above in strictly informative manner, without any single ironic comment, accusation, or regret. For a while, we're becoming CPU's given certain task, OK?
---

Same apply for election. I think that it's pretty clear, that Community want election, and it should take place for this and other (time limit, etc) reasons. SD69 was doing legal work around HiFo for a reason - please, write (in same, informative matter) what is exactly required to have this election legally appropriate for Hildon Foundation, how passing responsibilities should look, etc.
---

I'm perfectly sure, that we can handle this, if we hit "hard reset" now, and start cooperating from scratch, Otherwise, critical mass may get "achieved", with catastrophic (for community) chain reaction as consequence.

/Estel

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

There is already an official update from Hildon Foundation. We possibly can do an election for the Hildon Foundation Council at the same time as Maemo Community Council. There can be a hard reset of election rules for Hildon Foundation Council. There can't be a hard reset of Maemo Community Council rules (except by referendum) as we've agreed with Nokia to keep the Maemo Community Council intact.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

"official update from Hildon Foundation..." :eek:
you're adressing community and council that way? :eek:

Also, this discussion is not about Jim and should be held in this thread, at least it would be on topic there...

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

It seems to be, that in general understanding, Hildon Foundation Council was to replace Maemo Community Council. I understand, that in your (as a lawyer) opinion, bylaws doesn't state that, so we have intention<->results errors.

How could it be handled in a way that Community expects (one Board and one Council), without breaking bylaws? Could it be workarounded by having same candidates for Maemo Community Council and Hildon Foundation Council with (hopefully) same people elected for both Council bodies?

Then, referendum on fix for bylaws (that would patch this mess with two councils) could be held.

Another possible scenario - electing Hildon Foundation Council, and 0 candidates for Maemo Community Council. Would it result in disbanding Maemo Community Council, and be followed by same referendum for updating Hildon Foundation Bylaws?
---

Note about the above - I'm asking about purely legal point of view. I know such "legal dance" may sound ridiculous, but I understand that SD69 - as a lawyer, and one of people responsible legally for Foundation's respect for law - may want to follow bylaws to the letter, not willing to respect "intentional spirit" (legally hard to prove, in case of troubles).

If I understand SD69's correctly, he haven't said that he like the dual-council thing - he is just stating how, in his opinion, our bylaws work in terms of law appropriate to Foundation.

If that's correct, then we have messed up bylaws. It doesn't matter whose fail it is at this point (not to mention, that bylaws were available for everyone to review for quite long time), the thing is how to fix this mess in most effective way.
---

another disclaimer - I'm not telling that I agree (or disagree) - with SD69's or Hildon Foundation's view on things - I'm just trying to fairly state point's presented, to allow civil and free-of-flamewars discussion between interested parties (current Council and HiFo).

Call it "volunteer moderation of discussion", if you want - keeping in mind, that it will work only as long, as everyone involved accept the idea I've presented in my last post (stating points in strictly informative manner, without any negative emotional attachments, and assuming that "People mean well"). If, for some reason, both or one of interested parties isn't interested in that attempt to rebuild cooperation, I will humbly hide where I came from :)

Still, i think that, lately, for some reasons, we've lost ability to even *talk* with each other at cooperative level about Board<->Council things, so I strongly encourage to, at least, try that "hard reset of attitude".
---

At this point, I would like to thank SD60 for answering exactly as I've requested (informatively, without accusations or blaming anyone). I've talked with joerg_rw (if I'm not wrong, head of tech staff), trying to encourage him into doing the same - I hope he will decide it's worth trying, too.

/Estel

// Edit to the above
Win7Mac, please, no flaming. "Update from Board" is regular way of official announcements in any Foundation managed by Boards. Keep in mind, that I haven't even seen its content - I just mean that there is nothing wrong in naming here, or using it as a way to announce Board's decisions.

Lets not discuss about form or things from the past (which doesn't lead anywhere), but stick to the merit and things we can do in $future_from_now, OK?

Also, I don't think it's so important in which Board<->Council thread civil discussion will happen, as long, as it happens at all. This thread seems to be most active, so I proposed it here. If TMO moderators feel like splitting topics, lets leave it to their discretion.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Dear Community,

SD69 is just playing with words twisting them beyond the point of recognition to support his opinion. The unfortunate fact is that we fell for it and fed him with more words to twist. I'll change the tune now, I hope it's not too late to appeal to your intelligence and ability to judge.

On a meeting back when SD69 wasn't even a HiFo board director, the board decided to appoint the council. Do you really believe that they appointed the Maemo Community Council to do it's regular job? Or that by a slip of the hand of the meetong minutes author the term Hildon Foundation Council was omitted, and HiFo as it should, and as was way more logical, appointed a HiFo council early on, which was incidentally (what would be better?) the fresh MCC?


Now on the word appoint, what do you think? That the bylaws have the 7 day clause just for the sake of the rule? Or to ensure that the Foundation doesn't remain directorless for long? If Mr. Bauer's explanation is indeed right then he could have appointed Pope Francis as Diector and no further action would be required. Is this likely to be the spirit of that clause? Is this a foundation you want serving maemo.org?


Lastly, on elections. What do you think is the purpose of the clause that allows either body to cause elections for both bodies? Do you think that our call for elections for both bodies serves the spirit of that clause even if we (according to Mr. Bauer) are not the HiFo Council, especially when the general gist of the community member's comments AND the explicit opinion of 2/3 of the board directors is in favor of elections? Do you think it is an unofficial act, or that the board should take it seriously and call it's own elections anyway saving us all from the discussion and delays?


Thank you for reading,

Michael Demetriou,
council member

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

You just won't be content, will you? I could have appointed no one and continued on as the only Director while special elections languished (because there is no working election process in place). That would have been bad. So instead I appointed two people, including the one requested by Ivan and Maemo Community Council. And then you turn around and complain that I made the appointments... Please move on.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

You did very well appointing the directors. Please read my comment again

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

What really makes me wonder...
You find the last hidden tiny catch in the bylaws, but then again you completely miss to grok the core statement in plain english text, where from comes this strange difference in capabilities?
Not a single word in qwazix' post criticized your appointment of Jim or Woody, it's the very way how you argue and put your rationale that we criticize. And your answer been the best example.

[edit] When this obscure appointment of MCC "for daily maemo business" by HiFo BoD was made and you joined that meeting, are you sure the other two BoD members were on same page as you regarding the implications and meaning of that decision? Or did you consult them to phrase that decision and meeting minutes in such a way that everybody thought HiFo did the right thing while now you claim MCC never been meant to be a HFC? Or was it maybe like that: Appointing MCC as HFC was *exactly* what been decided in that meeting, but somebody wrote the meeting minutes in a way so they were ambiguous to the point of no recognition. Who wrote the meeting minutes?

And one more point I honestly like to get explained by you since I really suck at reading extremely long and infested with lawyer speech bylaws but I know you know them by heart: WHAT (except for calling elections of both bodies) is the exact purpose and duty of the postulated/assumed Hildon Foundation Council, if we'd take it as a 3rd entity besides BoD and MCC? Has such entity any meaning and rationale besides a Maemo Community Council? And has a BoD any legitimity without any such "higher instance" that could call a big reset when stuff goes awry? For me it's clear that HFC is the controlling instance (or call it judge) of BoD, to guarantee that BoD behaves. This purpose it completely moot when BoD appoints HFC at own discretion, just as they feel it helps their own plot.

To me it seems we should maybe ask those who wrote the bylaws and those who decided on that BoD meeting that you quote so often, what it actually was they thought they wrote and decided. After all in real life the meaning of a written statement depends also on the notion and context in the mind of the writer, and what they communicate to the recipients on sidebands not to be found in the written text itself - this determines a lot how others understand that text. In all honesty not only all 3 current MCC members but also authors of the bylaws and former BoD and council members (of this term) expressed their take on it that MCC been appointed by BoD for HFC. One of them is even one of your BoD peers, so even BoD itself isn't unanimous about whether MCC=HFC or not. Now you bash us (MCC) for not complying with your way to read things and spit poison that we were a rogue bunch who wants to seize power. :-/ No, Rob, we don't want to seize power, we want to hand all power back to community, that's why we (MCC/HFC) called elections of both bodies, also containing a first draft of the election rules. You not supporting this move in every possible way you can is not the right way, please rethink.


BR
jOERG

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Are you, or are you not for elections? I know the answer already.

As for concerns on following the ByLaws, the way forward is quite simple: Appoint the existing MCC as HFC (which I believe was already done) so they can produce the needed election criteria. Then all of this follows the ByLaws in a happy, legal way. Yet you resist this, and claim the two were never fully made the same. Why?

I do not believe anyone is claiming the existing Directors are invalid in any way. Even if the appointments happened after the window, they're still valid. The question is if there is a documented legal need for Board elections. I feel the answer to that is yes, you feel otherwise. Even if there's not a legal need for it, the community and current Council have called for it. That should be enough to hold call for one and use existing rules to make it happen.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Yes.. The last meeting of the Board was in February. When I was brought on as a Director, the very first thing I did was ask for a meeting to be called. I even asked that we hold a meeting with all available members (You and I, as Jim was unresponsive) just to cover some of the needed topics that wouldn't require a unanimous vote. That was over a month ago.

I CC'ed in Council for most of those e-mails, because I've played this particular game with you before. The one where if things aren't going your way, you go silent.

Some of the blame may be misplaced. But a good chunk of this is squarely hinging on you at this point. Through delay and silence you've reached the point of jeopardizing this community though inaction. The Nokia and IPHH contracts are still not signed. Funds for major items, like certificates and hardware already purchased and in use, are languishing. The agenda of the next Board meeting has over 15 topics.

Despite my offering direct contact details, and near 24/7 availability, I have trouble getting an e-mail reply, yet alone a meeting setup. Yet you seem to find time to post things on the HiFo blog, debating the legality of their actions, and comment here.

Even the currently tentative meeting on Friday is still being held up as tentative because of a lack of reply from Jim (whom I don't think is getting all the e-mail from here). We cannot and should not hold up active business for having all of us at the meeting. Even if he can't make that time, we have 2/3 of the Directors, and should at least move forward on items we agree upon that need attention.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

So sad, I was going to insert a sad face picture but can't even muster the motivation to do that, so down.
Marxian, for the love of God, plz insert some comic relief, we need it at this point... :(

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

That referendum is already underway. That you don't know of it is indicative of your disconnect with what's going on in the community.

Said the officer to Rosa Parks? Sorry... just a though that went through my brain based on the timing.

What exactly should we be content with? Appointment? That you were so magnanimous to appoint others rapidly, as to not face an actual election? That you appointed someone outside the community, and now use their unavailability as an excuse to do nothing? What exactly are we to be content with?

We would very much like to. That's the issue here. We would like to have the pending contracts signed, so that we CAN move forward. We would like to have funds released for working and valid certificates for the systems and reimbursement for hardware that was purchased to keep things running. But all of this is being held up.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

You've thanked my post, where I asked to set red fat line and start cooperating again, writing posts without accusations/blamings/etc. And, as a next thing, you write something like that quote above?!

You're not speaking in damn Senate, targeting the audience! And I don't mean that you're right or wrong in what you've have written, frankly, I don't care. What community expects from all of you, Board members and Councilors, is being able to cooperate and communicate. Period. How do you expect any collaboration, if you start writing post like that? You could write whatever afterwards, it's just spoiled, as your discussion partner become sparring partner, or even enemy.

Personally, I don't agree with 99% of SD60's interpretations, but he at least tried, and did exactly what was requested - just after my post, he wrote about problem he perceive, and wasn't accusing anyone of anything, ever less attacking.

OTOH, Council members (who seemed to have more sane argumentation about some merits) happily ignored request to assume "People mean well", and stop bashing discussion partners. Just great.

At this point, I'm equally disappointed in all of you. Is it so hard to understand, that you may have best argumentation in the word, but if you fail to discuss it at cooperative level with your organization's partners, you just fail to perform your duties?

We *don't* f'kin care who is right in this argument, again. We want you, BoD and Council, to start cooperating NOW - until that, you're both totally WRONG, and no matter of results, argument is LOST for Maemo Community.
---

Until you get to understand that, happy bashing each other in your kindergarten. I just hope, it won't be too late, then. I'm out, it's futile to waste energy here.

/Estel

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

A) what makes you think you're in the position to speak for the community at large?
B) what's your definition of "cooperation"?
C) what makes you think any such cooperation is what it's all about here, at all? It rather seems that community, 2/3 of BoD, and 3/3 of MCC are unanimously in agreement about what needs to get done. So what's that cooperation you ask for so desparately?
There's just one single cooperation that's not yet achieved: 1/3 of BoD having a meeting with his BoD peers and not blocking actions anymore.

Please don't badmouth a discussion just because it's not proceeding in a way that you - as self assigned discussion moderator - think is the only possible one. It's posts like yours that are at least similarly annoying and causing feelings of frustration in other readers of this thread. There is no immediate doom pending in one BoD member disagreeing with the rest of the world about how to proceed to sanitize this whole situation, there's not even lethal impact on maemo.org maintenance since we found our ways around most of the blockers this disagreement introduces. It's just we want to sort this out once and for all, so similar discussions will not happen again in future.

again: cooperation is all fine in maemo community, except for disagreement with 1/3 of HiFo about priorities and procedure how to go ahead. It's those who scream "maemo gonna die! OMG OMG can't you stop discussing and finally DO sth" who are *really* spreading FUD and general bad feelings in community.

cheers
jOERG

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Estel, I appreciate the effort, but with the seemingly cooperative post SD69 invalidated the council with an "official" HiFo update that was clearly not approved by the rest of directors. I think cooperation has to come from both sides and it is clear that SD69 is not cooperating by delaying meetings for months now.

He also twisted your own words artistically by using your phrase hard reset, to apply it only to the Hildon Foundation Council, which in his notion is still a non-existent body, and not to the whole situation which clearly problematic.

I am all for a hard reset and I accept the possibility that I am also part of the problem. This problem however is going to solve itself in about 3 weeks when I will no longer be part of the council.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

For the above: that would be appropriate way of answering, from the beginning (minus some comments about twisting words). In order to start talking (as opposed to "bashing") again, defining point of conflict is crucial.

So, your point is that "Update from Board" is fake, as it wasn't agreed by other 2 Board members? Woody and Jim could comment on it?

As for invalidating Council, I rather understand SD69's words as he is seeing you (Council) as Maemo Community Council, *not* Hildon Community Council, due to (in his opinion) bugs in bylaws. I also interpret "hard reset" of HCC as fixing this bug, not some malicious, sneaking insult.
---

As for other things, I don't think anyone is going to "define what cooperation is", or try to explain, why cooperation is better than outright conflict, and why Community want it, not your bashing show.

It shouldn't be kindergarten, and posts demanding that, are not helping, at all (I'm looking at you, joerg_rw). From head of tech staff, I would expect table, answering things asked for (urgent, soon-to-be-urgent, and important in long run) things, that tech staff expect from Board (like signing contracts, etc). that, and only that info - not spoiled by some accusations, clever talking, or politics in between. Believe it or not, but any hostility in post here, spoils it as whole, making it unreadable (even if important things are hidden inside, between bashing lines).

/Estel

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

OK, then let me state that I AM cooperating, way more than you do. Now go prove the opposite. You won't achive that unless you take the burden to specify precisely what you want me to do.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

second post, for edited version
>> I would expect table, answering things asked for (urgent, soon-to-be-urgent, and important in long run) things, that tech staff expect from Board (like signing contracts, etc)<< see previous posts of mine, it's all there. and no Sir, I won't play parrot for you, reposting it again in a "cleaned for estel" version. The point is NOT about stuff techstaff needs to get done by HiFo, everybody is aware of them, nobody has declined any of those items so far. Please re-read my previous post about single "cooperation" that's needed - not by techstaff but by HiFo itself.
>> not spoiled by some accusations, clever talking, or politics in between<< You're again spreading unclear accusations. If you have particular points in my previous posts that you don't like, you will have no other way than point me precisely to them, or I have no clue what you're talking about.
Your post didn't help me in any respect to improve my performance here. On a sidenote: do you think attributing my posts as "kindergarden" and "bashing show" is really in the sense of your own postulated rules of engagement here? I conceive that as an insult and assign same attributes to your very post regarding that.

/j

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I can tell you with certainty that I was not contacted about this "press release" posted on the site. The opportunity was/is there, as I mailed out my home number and a direct-to-cell e-mail to both Council and Board some time ago (along with my two small weekly unavailable times) to ensure I was not the one blocking when it came to getting things done.

While I can't say for certain, I'm doubtful that he contacted Jim about this, since if he had he would have confirmation about Jim's availability of the upcoming meeting. Based on the (admittedly limited) correspondence I've had with Jim, I think he's been left out of the loop on a lot of things. Sometimes intentionally, and others due to e-mail filtering on his side, which I hope is now corrected.

Regardless, for one Director to post their point of view as "factual" on the HiFo site, when there are clear disagreements on the state of things, is out of line. Doing so without consulting the other Directors, or giving them access enough to post a counter point is even worse. Doing so after not replying to e-mail trying to resolve these topics, citing lack of input from Jim about it? What would you call that?

IMHO, nothing should be posted to a group blog without peer review. Recall how I asked for review on everything going to the blog when we were in Council, even on meeting minutes where we mainly agreed on things? There was a reason for that: To stem just this type of issue.

As for "attacks" on other people, yes, the tone should be more civil. But understand, there's a huge sense of frustration here. More so when others call for "cooperation", when in reality there is an excess of cooperation among 90% of those involved. Even more when that cooperation is in part needed to keep things running, despite the lack of cooperation of another.

The fact that you and I agree on a good chunk of this is indicator enough in my book that something else is clearly wrong here.

When people who normally disagree on a topic are all in agreement on something, and one person disagreeing is halting the process for following the will of the community, something is wrong and needs to be pointed out, addressed, and resolved.

Even if Rob is right about a few of the items (which I'm fully willing to admit, he may be), the proper thing to do is discuss the issues and try to come to a resolution about them. Going silent for weeks on end, and not replying to direct attempts to discuss things is not helpful. Selectively replying to one topic in a multi-topic question, with no intent to ever address the other topics, is also not helpful. That is, in large part, what's been going on here for the past month or more, from my vantage point.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Before you (or anyone else) ask, yes - it is possible, that you have missed those lines, due to me editing post. i hit "return" accidentally while editing (thus unclosed () ), and before I managed to fix it, you've responded already. So no conspiration here.

Not, hat I'm implying you think about one - I just wanted to make it clear, we don't need any suspicions here.

/Estel

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I am sincerely sorry that you stop your work at Council qwazix.
Unfortunately, I must say that I understand you qwazix and that's what makes it even more tragic.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Thats sounds like balanced and valid critic. Any comments on this, SD69? What made you think, that you should post "official updates from board" without prior acceptance of other Board members?

/Estel

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

Well, I had hard time deciding if quoting it here wouldn't be giving a pitiful thing higher attention than it's worth... But, I assume, that ignoring it would be against open nature of the problem, so here it is:

I've got a PM from a Councilor and current head of tech staff (the one I asked to post here a blame-less summary, on what exact actions tech staff expect from Board), with following content (whole message, no cuts):

Considering, that all of my four posts on this thread were volunteer initiative, helping conflicted sides to start maintaining a civil and flame-less communication, I don't know what to think about it. Especially, that joerg_rw thanked majority of my posts here, myself (maybe he removed those thanks now, haven't checked).
---

Maybe for some individuals from both sides of the fence, "people mean well" doesn't mean anything. Maybe peaceful cooperation between Board members and Board<->Council, would be bad for some personal "visions" and plans. Really, no idea.

Still, I've stated, from the very beginning, that my humble volunteer work in maintaining civil communication (and help both sides to understand each others points, without crazy suspicions about malicious intentions) can be only based on mutual acceptance. Until joerg_rw's, I haven't seen any Board or Council member refusing to accept my attempts on bringing discussion back to cooperation tracks.

Could Council, internally, consult and present here a consistent view on that matter? If it is, really, how at least one of conflicted bodies see my volunteering and don't like it, I'll humbly leave you in - nomen ironically omen - peace, to continue your mutual bashing.

No need to waste my energy and your precious time, if getting a peaceful solution and cooperation isn't worthy goal for *both*.

/Estel

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I didn't sign this PM with "councilor" nor with "head of techstaff". I posted you in PM since I didn't feel like answering your silly post 2 up in this thread was adding to the S/N ratio in a positive way. I been mistaken.

Stop spreading lies! I hardly ever remove thanks, and for sure I didn't in this thread, so everybody is free to check. If you think that's not true, ask for tmo admin to verify!
And what got my thanks to do with you not knowing what to think of a simple PM? If you don't understand what's the meaning of "please stop acting like a showmaster" that's hardly related to to this thread in any way, and even less to my thanks to one post where you actually had a point and one post where you admitted that you messed it up.
Hard to believe your actions are based on your own postulate. What do you think why I sent this PM to you? To annoy you? To follow some nasty secret masterplan? No Sir, I thought you're acting silly, nothing else. I thought you might want to know about how (at least I) think about your last post that was like "Oh a nifty answer! now let's ask candidate B what she will do to catch up. A already is 5 points ahead..." - like a showmaster in TV, not contributing anything to the progress of this discussion. Or do you think SD69 needs you prodding him to answer when he feels like sth is worth answering?
For sure not, since my private posts are not a matter of discussion inside board.
Your effort to poison atmosphere will fail. It just exposes your true intentions.
Yeah, please do! I don't need your instruction, patronizing, and bashing (in fact you're the one who's bashing most here, wait... actually it seems to me you're the only one actually attacking people and bashing them for not obeying your self appointed discussion moderator rules).
You still seem to fail to grok that the whole point here is about a HiFo meeting, and there's no cooperation missing. We explained to you in terse and verbose, you refuse to get the catch. So yes, I'd actually prefer you stop that. I at least don't perceive your posts as any helpful (except maybe for yourself)

BR
jOERG
(NOT council, NOT blabla of techstaff, just jOERG.)

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

I believe the unofficial "official" bod update should be removed immediately from the hildon foundation website.

Please get on with making the mcc=hfc and elections for both bod and hfc/mcc already.

Re: [Hildon Foundation] A personal introduction by Jimjag (Jim Jagielski)
 

it's all on its way, don't worry. :-)
See http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=89711 and
http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=89560

cheers
jOERG