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