maemo.org - Talk - [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Community (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s) (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=89560)

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332670)

I don't know if that post has made anything any more clear.
One thing's for sure though: this refrendum is not meant to change *anything* in the way that things _are_ handled now, and it's not meant for asking your opinion by voting yes or no - we hope this referendum will gain 100% yes votes, since there are no changes planned and with a rejected referendum we're basically f**ked

Great, only at point 4 from above post and few concerns already, but if you can guarantee in the future no power grab scenario can occur without a referendum that's great, because currently it cannot. There are so many one can think of... our community is at last breath, this calls for desparate measures, in order to save it, the few guys that just accepted their nominations agreed to make me supreme councilor, we have no resources to waste in those tiring elections, electorate is already tired, time to act, we need funds now, not on charity basis, this is war, from now on seeing after 50th char of post costs 5$sub, we put it so low so our fellow brown brethren can take part, rest will fund our CES exposure, supreme councilor will be there to speak about our community, this will definitely strengthen opensource/meam.... This can go on and on. I'd prefer to be able to speak my mind lawmaking rather then lawadvisory way about such practices. Referendum is one possibility

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur (Post 1332664)

Okay, so, here is some backstory/explanation(...)3.A. Because the Hildon Foundation bylaws needed to legally/formally provide for elections, there was also some need to have a way of determining who is eligible to vote. Instead of copying the system of eligibility verbatim from the current Maemo Community Council rules, or handcoding some other explicit system into the bylaws, the bylaws state that the Hildon Foundation Council has the responsibility of coming up with the election eligibility requirements - no, it does not have to call for a referendum to do so, like the Maemo Community Council would.

Can we get back to karma then? Crisis averted (there never was if you look through irc logs, data was always backed, just a matter of few quesries and you know it, problem grew out of proportion for bylaws writing, sorry)

Quote:

It also allowed for the Council to change the election eligibility much more responsively than with a referendum (remember, not the election /rules/ - not who wins/loses or how they do it - just who is eligible to vote or be nominated for a position).

Again, good thing. Since already wiki edit-farming was proposed to the non-meamo guy (and seems to be accepted unless the same rules will allow you guys to give him free card), you solved the problem yourself. If we're worried about power grab then get rid of karma let us decide who is eligible and who is not much more responsively...

Quote:

5. The LAST Council election, which also elected the first Hildon Foundation Board, was intended by those setting up Hildon Foundation to elect this Council for /both/ of the "Council" entities.

The LAST had also much less legitimacy than the penultimate one, which also happened to be the first pretty much legal(?), so many adjectives

Quote:

6. A little while ago Rob (SD69)(...) it's this kind of chicken-egg problem that I think makes Rob's interpretation non-sensible).

Chicken-egg is what bylaws/HFC/MCC is all about.

Quote:

7. But if we are holding elections for both Council entities, naturally there's the problem of "we don't want two Councils" - no one here that I know of wants two Councils (many want zero Councils). So then the logical options are to either:

A. Hold both election simultaneously as if they were one body (and either hard-code the rules governing both Councils such that no one can run for just one of them, or hope no one throws a spanner in the works by explicitly saying "I am nominating myself for Maemo Community Council, but not Hildon Foundation Council".) Note that, if we are doing A as the long term solution, then we have to ADD the "you must run for both Councils at the same time" to the eligibility for nomination rules by either adding it to this referendum or starting another one, AND all Councils following that must not either intentionally or accidentally delete that provision for the. Also, any change, even one clearly supported by the Community, to the bylaws that in any way conflicts with the current Maemo Community Council rules would require a 30-days-to-get-to-a-vote referendum (actually, that's the thing - the bylaws change can pass instantly and apply to the "Hildon Foundation Council" 'half' of the Council immediately, and then the Council can be potentially paralyzed until the referendum updates the "Maemo Community Council" part of the ruleset). Mind you the Council is the body /more/ likely to be responsive to the "will of the people" than the Board, if the current situation is any indication of how the future will be like.

- or -

B. to agree as a community to merge them - my understanding when we were discussing this referendum, was that the "transform" wording meant explicitly this. I also think this is the long-term better approach, because of the problems mentioned above.

For that matter, look at this referendum: this wouldn't even be a thing if we didn't have two separate entities formally, for the same purpose and intended to be the same entity. If we keep them /both/ under the reasoning "well their rules are identical now and we can think of them as one", that's fine for a while, but I guarantee you we'll be dealing with this kind of stuff eventually - having to do some wierd formality of making sure that the rulesets are matched while half of the community (and even members of the elected bodies in question) ends up looking at the situation thinking "wait, wtf is going on? This Council is really two different entities with two identical rulesets, but one of them requires a 30-day referendum to change?". If we want to avoid politics fatigue in the future, this is exactly what we don't want. Me personally, both as a Council member AND more importantly as a community member, I find this formality-split in what everyone agrees ought to be a single entity to be the source of the most time wasting, legalese mitutia conflicts, and general headache (for me at least, literally) out of everything that has happened since we started this journey of being a community-run non-profit. I assure everyone that at least on my end, this referendum is an effort to remove as much of the unnecessary, technicalities-that-don't-serve-anyone politics as possible.

[Sidenote: we could do A for now, do B eventually. This is what I originally expected would happen, but IF this referendum passes (and people don't insist that "transform" didn't mean option B), we don't have to do A at all, because the 'merge' will have resolved before the new election cycle. If this referendum fails, we /have/ to do A this election cycle (except by then it'll be too late to update the eligibility rules by referendum to prevent people from running for one Council but not the other, so we'd be back to hoping no one does that).]

Effectively the /only/ "power grab" enabling aspect of this change is that the bylaws do not inherently require the Hildon Foundation Council to go through the community referendum process to change the rules that govern the elections (maybe, I think Woody and others might argue even this isn't really the case - though I think the bylaws as written don't support that position). But even IF that's true, there's nothing stopping the very first set of election criteria advanced by the first officially-recognized-as Hildon Foundation Council from saying "These rules may not be changed again except by referendum.", if that's what people really want.

Maybe the meeting times and various other tidbits are hardcoded into the Maemo Community Council rules as well, but if so, does anyone really want to claim we should have 30 days for debate if it ever becomes desirable to change details like that? Most of the really damaging stuff that the Council can currently do (not necessarily has the formal power to do, but can probably make happen by asking the right people) is not subject to referendum anyway. For example, two meetings ago, it was suggested that we should remove speedpatch and batterypatch packages from the extras and extras-testing repositories. One of the main reasons nothing has happened yet on that front was because I said "I want to start a thread asking the community for input on the issue first", even though I agreed with the reasoning provided for doing so. (Speaking of: I'll be putting that thread up sometime within the next 24 hours at the latest, I promise.) If other people were on the Council than the current batch, it's possible that would've just /happened/ without community input, as nothing in the Maemo Community Council rules prevents it any more than the Hildon Foundation bylaws do. So if we're trying to avoid abuse of power (as we should), we should focus on other things - coming up with ways to modify the bylaws to fix those issues, then electing Councilmembers and Board Directors who will enact the desired changes in the bylaws.

I completely agree, actually, that there should be power for the community to trigger referendum to kick people out of elected positions. But that's completely besides the point for THIS referendum and voting no on it will not in any way help us get to that goal.

-----
Thank you, everyone who took the time to read this - I know it's rather long.

[/quote]

Somehow I believe 4 weeks of discussions will show us some more ways than a and b, these for me at least do not fill the possibility jar

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332692)

definitely not. Either we get this referendum done, according to the rules that apply now and will apply in future as well. Or we're done with maemo. There's no possibility jar to fill. This is not a vote about alternatives, this is a referendum to get something inevitable done. the only alternative is not getting it done, which directly leads to doom. I think I can't post it yet more explicit in a third post, so please read this one and get it.
/j

Please try, or you're holding us hostage, hope you can understand the uneasiness of that

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

This leads me to just one point: This is the LAST referendum to end them all. No need with the carefully crafted (by)laws of new entities that will not give a F about community vote, they are hasty and needed and stop DOOM and aids, all at once, you guys have no choice. Split the goddamned thing into choices, so people at least feel they have last time power over this (make it so X is included in all choices, so whether they like blue they get green, or yellow (they get green)... DOOM

This is waaay overdramatic, but if the referendum is vote YES or we all die... DOOM is not that far, grabbing popcorn, one sec

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332695)

Szopin,
somehow your contributions get weirder and weirder, and make less and less sense. Sorry but unless you can mamange to phrase your concerns a tad more clear and to the point, I'm neither able nor willing to answer to them. Just so much, your whole plot to me seems based on a paranoic conspiration theory spiced by trolling.

/j

Pretty close. In easier terms: You say: Guys, Yes or maemo is dead. I say: He says it to kill your right to influence by referendum.
No idea how to put it in simpler terms

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Ok, last try, simplest terms possible: GUYS, LAST VOTE. Vote YES and you have nothing to worry about till the end of time, the good guys will take care of it. If you vote NO, except doom, you will also retain the chance to vote NO on future absurd ideas, you will have to take care of yourselves though

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332698)

yes, exactly. I explained the situation to you and you answer with weird conspiracy sh*t. Exactly to the point. at least this last one post of yours was pretty clear, though you don't probably see it.
Your influence *IS* exactly what I told you. And I'm not killing your influence by telling you what influence you have. That's absolute drunken nonsense argumentation of yours. You more and more sound like trolling, sorry to put it that straight.
BTW your double posting start to get annoying.

/j

Glad to see you confirm once again referendum stays with its current powers, not unlike we've seen before killed (and 0% of people asked would say they voted for it consciously, win)

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Ok nobody wants to see stupid arguments being made so I'll cut things short to move discussion forward:

Mentalist Traceur, in all honesty, your post is exactly why people run away from Council/Board matters because its so confusing to read such a long-winded post.
szopin, what are you trying to get to? Be concise and if you want to annoy someone like in a playground go and do it face-to-face instead of using mods as your pawns.

With the above done now the tl;dr of having this referendum from what I understand is:

MCC reports to Nokia as its head but now we have HiFo handling the financial aspects we want to transform MCC to HiFo Council
As part of this transformation, ALL the rules of MCC will be carried forward except for the 3 and 5 candidates situations
This thread is so that we have 4 weeks to discuss about the go-ahead to transfrom MCC to a HiFo Council with above changes plus anything else people think can close loopholes to prevent power grabs etc

Now if someone wants to correct my misconceptions PLEASE keep it short, simple and concise.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

concise version: the proposed changes do not change anything regarding referendum requirements

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedead1440 (Post 1332705)

Mentalist Traceur, in all honesty, your post is exactly why people run away from Council/Board matters because its so confusing to read such a long-winded post.

While I understand that that is the case for many people, this is what is involved in serious matters of seriousness.

I gave people:
A. Background information for how we got to the need to do this: this was always intended, it wasn't made explicit last election, one of the Board claimed this Council was only the Maemo Community one and didn't count as the Hildon Foundation one as well.
B. Detailed and thorough explanation of the reasoning for why the situation breaks down the way it does and what it means.
C. Some arguments for why szopin's suggestion that this deprives people of their power is erroneous, arguments that applied even if this effected referendum requirements (which everyone else seems to think it doesn't even do that).

Unwillingess to exert the mental resources and time required to fully understand an issue before forming an opinion on it is something I have difficulty sympathizing with. So if some people see what I wrote and decide it's tl;dr, okay, fine, they can read the more concise summaries. But I can't bring myself to express it shorter because then I feel like I am oversimplifying, and then consequently, I feel like I'm doing a disservice to those who do want a detailed understanding.

- Edit -
Though in the interest of full disclosure I'll admit the amount of sleep I got this week has been averaging to about 2 hours a night. So I probably could have thought of at least somewhat clearer/conciser explanations if I was more mentally refreshed/sharp at the time.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by szopin (Post 1332694)

This leads me to just one point: This is the LAST referendum to end them all.

Which part of my posts have you not read? I've said several times now that this neither adds nor removes ANY requirements for referendums.

The number of times referendums is required is and will be identical, weather you vote YES or NO on this. Nothing in this referendum changes when or if referendums are required.

Is that clear? Referendums are NOT going away. They were never proposed to go away, nor do any of the changes proposed in this one cause ANY changes that affect referendums AT ALL.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

joerg/woody, I think we can easily address any problems szopin has, correct flaws in reasoning, etc, without resorting to ridicule or dropping implicit insults, whether they be at szopin or indirect references to (near as I can tell) Estel.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentalist Traceur (Post 1332897)

joerg/woody, I think we can easily address any problems szopin has, correct flaws in reasoning, etc, without resorting to ridicule or dropping implicit insults.

I've edited their posts; once a moderator steps in to cut things short and move on it is understood that everybody should refrain from inciting things further and keep things on-topic.

On a more general note, I'll have to report further inciting posts for infraction points from now on. One person's joke is an insult to somebody else so why go into it again?

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

beside having thanked him with the little thanks! link underneath his post i would like to thank Mentalist Traceur for his elaborate post!
not only for the sheer effort of typing it out (which many resented, clearly) but also also for indeed bringing up a couple things i wasn't aware of.
than again, i haven't exactly followed what's going on here much lately, certainly not after two weeks' ago MCC meeting :mad:

this being said, i still feel that all this isn't really worth any Conspiracy theory ;) ideas :eek: :rolleyes: :D
after all, even openSUSE is coming with an ARM port, so hopefully we'll soon be able to run any Linux distro on a mobile device :eek:
maybe even on our beloved N900s :)
thus is there room or even need of Maemo once our N900's stop working? i'll be using it as long as possible (even though i have a N9) but also hope that Jolla will surprise us with a nice device with hardware keyboard :D :cool:

so, is all that worth so much, that we need to spend days, weeks arguing about dots & commas, suspecting everyone and every statement of an attempt to a coup?

and insulting each others, btw... what's the point in that, indeed :( :confused:

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedead1440 (Post 1332900)

I can tell you that *I* don't like jokes like "this post just to annoy him. Please moderators delete when he's annoyed, no other point in it" and *my* brain refuses to delete any info or even tag it as "censored". I will *always* answer accordingly.

Now go ahead, edit this post to stay on topic, and give me infraction points for it
BR
jOERG

PS: the fact that MT brought in usernames here doesn't mean that anything in Woody's or my post been any insulting, in my book both posts were perfectly within all forum rules and didn't call names or even go off topic. The fact that MT instantly came up with an other user's name is sufficient proof that Woody's initial suspicion been a common one not only with him and me but also with MT, though MT - as usual - is approaching it in a much more forgiving way and instead blamed woody and me - if he really did.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

So to have everything cristal clear - I vot Yes and everything runs smooth as silk?

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332966)

Joerg,

i'm going to get even more in trouble and getting more infractions for replying OFF TOPIC, but i appreciate where you are coming from...
still, i thing 1440 does a decent enough job keeping posts in line, and as i alluded to in my previous post on this topic, what's the point in insulting other posters?
isn't the best reaction to insult (as to trolling) no response?
then again, if the insult takes the (general) form of "since you are member of ..., you ..." it is difficult not to react, but at least (as you usually do, as far as i can tell) remain matter of factly, so cool that you can keep a side of meat inside of you for a month or can't even look over your pelvis anymore?

i suspect the lack of trolling recently has more to do with the dwindling of interest in TMO then 1440's ruthlessness, but still, correcting the unruly is still the only way to impose any rule, alas...

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332966)

[...]

PS: the fact that MT brought in usernames here doesn't mean that anything in Woody's or my post been any insulting, in my book both posts were perfectly within all forum rules and didn't call names or even go off topic. The fact that MT instantly came up with an other user's name is sufficient proof that Woody's initial suspicion been a common one not only with him and me but also with MT, though MT - as usual - is approaching it in a much more forgiving way and instead blamed woody and me - if he really did.

we don't have access to the original parts anymore, so except venting your frustration... what's the point?
http://www.popcornreel.com/kfp11.jpg

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

you vote yes and we will try to give HiFo a proper council that this entity is allegedly missing since its own foundation, according to Rob. According to all others involved in foundation of and early instantiation of HiFo the HiFo council is simply adjusting a few typos to make own rules that they have promised to follow are more in line with that HiFo entity's bylaws, so there won't be annoying cumbersome conflicts in future.
For you it's exactly like that: vote yes and everything is more likely to stay as it ever been, vote no and probably maemo will collapse.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1332971)

according to some wise man (you're free to dig his name up in citations db):

Quote:

It is irrelevant how plausible or how backed up by facts an defamation is to make the masses believe it. Really all it needs is constant repetition so they hear it every day for weeks and months.

I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here, and the only logical consequence is to let not a single false statement, lie, or diffamation get by unanswered.
So NO, not answering to trolling that has potential to give others a false idea is not an option.

cheers
jOERG

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332978)

according to some wise man (you're free to dig his name up in citations db):

I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here, and the only logical consequence is to let not a single false statement, lie, or diffamation get by unanswered.
So NO, not answering to trolling that has potential to give others a false idea is not an option.

cheers
jOERG

Quote:

actions lie louder then words...
-- Carolyn Wells

why not simply asking for proof?
of course, you have to give the good example first and post your point with good proof, references and all :rolleyes: :confused:

Quote:

democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest
-- Winston Churchill

know why?
'cuz masses are gullible, indeed... :( :mad:

EDIT: check my signature... it has been there for months, stating exactly your point

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332978)

[...]
I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here[...]
jOERG

remind me, who is Woody, to be the authority everyone (or only you?) has to comply with?!?

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1332987)

remind me, who is Woody, to be the authority everyone (or only you?) has to comply with?!?

remind me, who are you to suggest I'm an idiot who tries to comply with other notions being unable to come up with and defend my own?!?

What does you make believe it's not woody who tries to comply to my notion? Why do you suppose anybody tries to comply with anybody here? If two guys have same take on something, you instantly start spreading nonsense about it, going insulting and implying rogue intentions and conspiracy again. >:-(

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332988)

remind me, who are you to suggest I'm an idiot who tries to comply with other notions being unable to come up with and defend my own?!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332978)

[...]
I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here[...]
jOERG

let me rephrase then...
who is Woody that we should comply with his opinion.
you will hopefully agree that your post quoted (again) above seems to imply only you, not me, or the community in general, does it, now?

but admittedly, my post is somewhat sarcastic, so just to make things totally & perfectly clear...

i know damn well who Woody is, have been having endless discussion about the sex of angels like arguments long enough on TMO for that, thanks :mad:
(my point) what makes Woody's opinion the rule and law on TMO?

EDIT: having scrolled back on this thread some, i come to realize that what you mean by

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332978)

[...]
I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here[...]
jOERG

is simply that you agree with Woody's statement that this referendum won't change anything else as far as referendums are concerned
and, possibly, that rejecting this referendum may doom MO...

wonder whether it even takes that to achieve this :(

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1332991)

let me rephrase then...
who is Woody that we should comply with his opinion.

let me put it again in maybe even stronger words then: who are you to suggest anybody should comply with anybody's opinion here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1332991)

you will hopefully agree that your post quoted (again) above seems to imply only you, not me, or the community in general, does it, now?

Sorry to disappoint you here, I won't agree on anything like that. It's entirely you who's making up that BS.

[edit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1332991)

[...]
but admittedly, my post is somewhat sarcastic, so just to make things totally & perfectly clear...

i know damn well who Woody is, have been having endless discussion about the sex of angels like arguments long enough on TMO for that, thanks :mad:
(my point) what makes Woody's opinion the rule and law on TMO?

To put facts totally & perfectly straight: your point is moot since nobody but you suggests that "Woody's opinion [is, or should be] the rule and law on TMO"

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1332991)

EDIT: having scrolled back on this thread some, i come to realize that what you mean by

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332978)

according to some wise man (you're free to dig his name up in citations db):

Code:

It is irrelevant how plausible or how backed up by facts an infamation is to make the masses believe it. Really all it needs is constant repetition so they hear it every day for weeks and months.

is simply that you agree with Woody's statement that this referendum won't change anything else as far as referendums are concerned
and, possibly, that rejecting this referendum may doom MO...

And no, my subsentence "I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here" was strictly meant regarding the bonmot about defamations and how to cope with them which I quoted imediately before that very sentence, implying that it's what I (and also woody) think is guiding to the right way to deal with trolling and defamations - answer and oppose them every single time. I honestly can't think how anybody could disassemble my few sentences in such a weird manner and put every subsentence into relation to some random unrelated post of 2 pages back or even in another thread. Is that how you phrase your statements? I try to phrase mine in a sense of continuity, where each sentence is somehow related to the previous one more likely than to random other stuff.
/j

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Seriously, just comply! Who are you people?

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1332998)

let me put it again in maybe even stronger words then: who are you to suggest anybody should comply with anybody's opinion here?
Sorry to disappoint you here, I won't agree on anything like that. It's entirely you who's making up that BS.

[edit] And no, my subsentence "I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here" was strictly meant regarding the bonmot about defamations and how to cope with them which I quoted imediately before that very sentence, implying that it's what I (and also woody) think is the right way to handle trolling and defamations. I honestly can't think how anybody could disassemble my few sentences in such a weird manner and put every subsentence into relation to some post of 2 pages back or even in another thread. Is that how you phrase your statements? I try to phrase mine in a sense of continuity, where each sentence is somehow related to the previous one more likely than to random other stuff.
/j

then i guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree on how to deal with trolling & disinformation... though i wonder whether you'll even be able to do that :(
case in point, i started this exchange with good intention, trying to calm things down and end up... not caring any more.
but hey, i'm only trolling, right?

Quote:

Sechs goldene Regeln
1. Gute Kommunikation bedient sich einer bildhaften Sprache mit emotional überzeugenden Bildern.
2. Sie ist selbstredend glaubwürdig.
3. Sie verfällt nicht in den Reflex, die Überbringer unangenehmer Botschaften zu verunglimpfen.
4. Sie versucht auch nicht abzuwiegeln, etwa unter dem Verweis auf verfahrenstechnische Schweigepflichten, die jede Auskunft verböten.
5. Sie unterstellt der Gegenseite keine unlauteren Motive.
6. In brenzligen Situationen lässt sie die Logik ihrer Argumente zugunsten der Situationspsychologie zurücktreten.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by misterc (Post 1333008)

[...]
case in point, i started this exchange with good intention, trying to calm things down and end up... not caring any more.
but hey, i'm only trolling, right?

Oh really? To me it sounded like you'd be badmouthing Woody and same sentence accusing me of trying to implement insane nonsensical "comply with..." requirements (which evidently I didn't), you thus helping again the insane "power grab" and "conspiracy" nonsense and taking it on yet another higher level. Based on your incredible misinterpretation of some pretty terse and clear statement of me that wasn't related at all to the referendum (my bad).

So yep, probably you're only trolling, you posting some funny by being unrelated golden rules doesn't help that fact.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Guys, you are reading too much into each other's posts.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwazix (Post 1333020)

Guys, you are reading too much into each other's posts.

Maybe I do, but I want to make sure that others don't do as well. That's why I try to make clear that those "ambiguities" (if they actually are ambiguities) should not get adopted by other readers of this thread. One misconception feeds the next, so stop resp. correct them whenever you find something that may cause misconceptions. Or you'll never catch up with the "backlog" (which btw been exactly the spirit of my initial post with that quote about defamations and my rationale why you shouldn't ignore them, that directly became the source of new misconceptions. Is that RL irony or just simple comedy?).

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Help....would anyone explain whats dis thread all about ..take a bit time n put a mildly concise note on this:) have gone through the thread n related threads frm couple of years but cant get it:(

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nokiabot (Post 1333031)

Help....would anyone explain whats dis thread all about ..take a bit time n put a mildly concise note on this:) have gone through the thread n related threads frm couple of years but cant get it:(

Thanks for going back on topic :-)
This thread is about a simple referendum that changes rather not-dramatic minor details in the rules that your council is based on, so your council can fulfill its task as Hildon Foundation council. Since such referendum is needed to change those rules, and a referendum needs a 4 week discussion phase before the voting starts, we're doing this discussion phase here, and we basically asked for community input if we have missed out on any implications with those changes that would create problems we haven't seen yet. Alas the whole thread turned into a discussion about conspiracy and an obscure "power-grabbing" - you can safely ignore all related posts, no such thing is involved in the rule changes we are asking community to approve.

cheers
jOERG

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

^^Thanx for quick reply:)peace in mind:o can u let me know what HIFO is upto . what it aims to be and why it exists .whats up with maemo what the borad is supposed for . Is it all upto setting new servers to keep maemo repos up? Whats the future of maemo after n900 as i see only that running it:)

sorry for bombarding but cant resist myself to clear all these as i was just a user who didnt botherd on all thease .
It might be late . Finally m concerned on all thease and wanna see a bright future of the community:) also do post about my writing what mistakes i make is it upto par??

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

HiFo is http://hildonfoundation.org/about/, an entity founded basically by last council and a few other volunteers to inherit maemo from Nokia, since this can't be done by council due to council lacking a legal status that allows e.g. signing of contracts. Last elections not only elected this council but also the first regular HiFo BoD.
Going into more detail regarding HiFo and your other questions would kill this thread. I'm sure you can find the relevant threads here in tmo via search function, now that you got a starting point.

cheers
jOERG

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Have gone through them previously:) anyway i will use the search which i rarely use insted i go though pages routinely:) thanx for all the help

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

IIRC this may have been explained already so apologies in advance...
But I once had a higher Karma than I do now, it seems to be missing a bunch of categories that added greatly to it.
It may simply be that aspects of Karma are still broken ATM, right?

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalyst (Post 1334742)

Right, that's why we decided to allow voting regardless of karma this single time.
see http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=89711 - Elections Eligibility Criteria -

/j

Re: Karma calculation of talk.maemo

just wondering... I have no karma :eek:
so that means I am not eligible to vote, right...

Propably that's okay since I tend to always vote the wrong candidated anyway :D

Re: Karma calculation of talk.maemo

You do, but the Karma isn't being calculated properly (automatically anyway, you can work out your Karma manually using the rules here) , so as Joerg just stated in the previous post, voting is open to ALL community members.

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joerg_rw (Post 1333013)

[...]

So yep, probably you're only trolling, you posting some funny by being unrelated golden rules doesn't help that fact.

final troll...
you are a PR disaster :( :mad:

Re: [Referendum] [Council] Hildon Foundation and Maemo Community Council(s)

Hi. Complete tangent.

I was asked by an email to come here and find out more about the vote.

I haven't been an active member of this community in 3ish years. Heck, I wasn't really active for a year or so before that, but I've been just about completely non-active for those 3 years.

Why am I still being asked to vote? I have my reasons for not deleting my account, but it's a bit annoying to get asked every so often "hey, come vote for this project that you aren't involved in anymore, and that might actually be a conflict of interest for you to be voting about*".

(* 3 years ago I changed jobs to work at Apple)

Did I miss an option in my account that says "don't bug me about voting"? If so, please let me know about it.

If not, if no such option exists -- please make one. Yesterday.