maemo.org - Talk - [Council] Maemo Elections

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

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

- - [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011 (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=75863)

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by timoph (Post 1072620)

I disagree and want to see the option qole proposed to be included in the vote (if there's going to be one).

I don't mind the third option as long as the delay is not too great (4-6 months) instead of end of 2012.

In the case of short period, it is wise, since it allows for graceful recovery without antagonising Nokia.

Long waiting in combination with option 3 is virtually equal to option 2, with one tiny difference - people pursuing/hoping for the resurrection of maemo loose their time during that period.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaffa (Post 1072633)

So, I'm going to hold my tongue here and reply to the "binding" issue again on the mailing list. Thread here

I wrote:

Quote:

Let's say we have Alice and Bob. Alice is eager to support the idea of a NFP, has experience in various societies/clubs already and knows what to do. Bob, however, has been a developer since the 770 days - he just wants to make sure that whilst there are users of his software they can get updates, and he can have the appropriate services to engage with his users and manage his project.

Alice would be willing to serve on a council transitioning maemo.org to a NFP. Bob would be willing to serve on a council which is taking a migratory approach.

How will they work together? Both of them are volunteers, why should they expect to be bound by a vote [which they don't support]?

Will Alice do all the work? We've had problems getting a sufficient number of candidates in recent/all elections - why will staffing an NFP be any easier, when it actually requires real work?

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

BTW, I'm not sure whether or not to be flattered - or worried - that the example wording for a particular type of referendum I suggested has, with good tweaks, been adopted by SD69 :-)

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Jaffa for TSG!

wait-- wrong thread.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texrat (Post 1072651)

Jaffa for TSG!

wait-- wrong thread.

:-) Definitely a different thread. And the tales I could tell you about #jaffa4tsg... over a beer, probably.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaffa (Post 1072657)

:-) Definitely a different thread. And the tales I could tell you about #jaffa4tsg... over a beer, probably.

I'll buy .

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD69 (Post 1072523)

The cutoff for debate (1 month before election) is in the rules - nothing I can do about it.

Another proposal: we could have a referendum on decoupling future referenda from council elections. Then we can deal with the reorg without immediate pressure and rushed decisions, but also without having to wait another 6 months.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by lma (Post 1072676)

There is no requirement for referenda to be held concurrently with Council elections.

Indeed, all the referenda to date have been about changing the rules before the next election.

EDIT: So when SD69 says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD69 (Post 1072523)

The cutoff for debate (1 month before election) is in the rules - nothing I can do about it.

I don't know to what he is referring. There are two references to "1 month" in the Council election rules:

#9: The election date must be publicised at least 1 month in advance of the election.
#12.2: The referendum options must be debated for a minimum of 1 month prior to the referendum.

It is therefore the choice of the Council as to how long the referendum debate and council hustings may be (with restrictions, see also points #1, #2 and #8)

My reading of point 12.2 (and, since I wrote it, I think my reading should count for something - although I'm going off my thoughts now, not what they were 3.5 years ago) is not the same as SD69's. When he says:

Quote:

Community members should carefully consider the governance referendum at this time. It must be debated for a minimum of one month prior to the election, and therefore the referendum will not be changed after Monday, 22nd August 2011

This is not debating the options. The debate of the options has only started today. There is no proposed referendum yet, and so there's a month to form the question, and its options. I may be wrong, other opinions may vary.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

I'm puzzled why rules that were instituted by "fiat" now require a referendum to be changed? Why did the "founding fathers" have the extra power to create rules without a community vote?

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections - September 2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by qole (Post 1072681)

I'm puzzled why rules that were instituted by "fiat" now require a referendum to be changed? Why did the "founding fathers" have the extra power to create rules without a community vote?

There was a community consensus at the time, and there was a community vote to give the initial council a mandate: http://maemo.org/vote/results.php?election_id=1

I don't remember people giving much input on the rules at the time; but this is massively off-topic now. You're on the Council, and you have to live by the rules of the body you volunteered to serve on. If you wanted to change it, you should've held a referendum ;-p