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

As promised (threatened), I'm posting a intro about myself, how I got involved in all this, why I agreed to get involved in all this and what I plan to "do" in all this.

First of all, a bit about me. I've been hacking and developing FOSS for several decades, making me an old-timer. I was part of the Apache Group, the original team of Apache httpd developers who later went on to found the Apache Software Foundation, which is likely one of the best known Open Source Foundations in existence. I've been on the board of the ASF since day 1, serving as Sec/EVP, Chairman and President. All directors are elected by the ASF membership. Despite some vague allegations, I am not some FOSS politician; I am a coder, and still am active on numerous FOSS projects, as a simple look on Ohloh would show. Because of my work, I was also elected into the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and the OuterCurve Foundation. I also speak at conferences about FOSS, communities, licensing, etc... I work for Red Hat.

There is a mailing list (foundation@) for those within the FOSS spheres related to issues/concerns/questions about running/organizing/etc FOSS foundations. Maybe 2 weeks ago there was an email posted on that list asking for help with HiFo. I did some research and it seemed to me that the community and foundation has great spirit, great potential and a great mission (a *real* open source mobile OS). It also looked like the foundation was in danger of dissolving, so I contacted the 2 posters and indicated my interest in helping however I could. At the time, I was attending and presenting at ApacheCon and things went quiet for awhile... we tried to connect but due to the con, timing was bad, and it wasn't until last week when I pinged board@HiFo again that I was made aware that I had actually been proposed as director!

So why did I even bother? True enough, up until the post on foundations@, I had not even heard about HiFo, and Maemo was just a vague awareness. First of all, as indicated above, I also believe that the mobile world would *greatly* benefit from a *real* open source mobile OS. iOS ain't, and neither is Android. "Real" open source for me is more than just a license, it's a community. And despite being treated like crap, from what I saw, the Maemo community was still holding up. Since it seemed to me that the existence and the health and viability of HiFo was crucial to Maemo continuing, I wanted to help. I figured that my experience in creating and running FOSS foundations might be useful, and maybe my experience and "reputation" might make Nokia feel more comfortable in the endeavor. Also, I thought that my PoV that foundations exist for the community and not the reverse aligned 100% with this situation. HiFo would exist and run for the simple legal aspects required to allow Nokia to donate the assets and allow the community to continue growing, developing and having fun... This is how the ASF works and I saw similarities.

So I know nothing about the code, and would not presume to direct or manage how it's coded, what to add, etc... IMO, that's not the function of the foundation or the board anyway. My desire was, and is, to help get HiFo on solid footing and then step away.

But as my initial post indicates, I don't suffer fools. I've been told that people are upset with the "processes" associated with HiFo; I'll be honest: if you are running a legal entity (and HiFo is), especially one that aspires to be a true NPF (501(c)3), you *better* follow the rules required, and I'm sure that Nokia wants that assurance. You can also bet that *any* entity that would even *think* of using code developed my Maemo would want to ensure that it can track IP and the like. That's what HiFo needs to ensure. If people think they can be lazy or lackadaisical about such things, then, well, you can develop the code of course, but no entity will use it; the risk would be too great.

And finally, I would like some sort of straw poll on whether or not you, the community, would like me to continue. In many ways, I was "forced" upon you, either rightly or wrongly. Now I'd like to hear from you.

Re: Intros
 

Thank you very much for the introduction and for accepting the position. I hope you can also tolerate the community since heated discussions are quite common here when it concerns politics. :)
You have my vote of confidence. :) (I'm a nobody by the way, just a regular vanilla member.)

Re: Intros
 

Thank you for your letter and the will to help. Maybe I'm not someone important here but seeing that there is a chance to move forward and gain new momentum I warmly welcome you here and hope that you will help the community with this project and end users like I can have a nice and bright future with Maemo or whatever will come out of it ;)

Re: Intros
 

Thanks for posting.

I selected Jim based on his body of work in the OSS community and what I believe to be our needs at the moment. Yes, I opted for continuity rather than elections. Despite what has been suggested, Jim and I have no prior relationship and I did not ask any special consideration, just that he benefit us with his experience. Without slighting him, there were no suggestions from the community other than Woody who has also agreed to join the Board. I realize that this all happened quickly, and I too wish there had been more time for consideration, but despite the 7-day constraint, we have fortunately ended up in a good position for the future after the unfortunate resignations of Ivan and Tim.

I encourage everyone to join me in extending Jim a warm welcome.

Re: Intros
 

Voilla ! It happens
tym to step up guyz:)

Re: Intros
 

This is a great moment for something like this to happen. Lots of people around the globe are desperate to see free and common platform living outside the prisons of walled ecosystems sustained by hype and perpetual creation of new devices, the very best of falling unnatural consumer economy.

Welcome and thanks.

With your experience and with magical talent of some guys/girls around here Hildon will be a new standard.

Re: Intros
 

Hi, and I welcome you on board. However, there are some things I want to say about your approach to our community, that bother me, and I am sure that bother others too.

First of all, I heard your name for the first time here (http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...51&postcount=5) on a post dated on the 5th of March 2013. 5 days later, (which I regard as a very long time given the 7 day limit BoD had to appoint a new director) you appear, not to say hi, but rather to defend yourself against somebody who called you a politician, demanding him to have studied the facts and learn about you, before opening his mouth.

I find it arrogant to stay away and expect maemo community members to know about you and not criticize the choice of your person at a so important position in maemo. Speaking for myself I denied to look you up, and waited for you to come say hi, as I wanted to first get to know you rather than form an opinion based on a cv.

Secondly you have to understand that as our major point of friction with the BoD is lack of communication and very slow actions, your appointment and absence for the first days looked very well like a desperate attempt to keep the imploding HiFo board from collapsing.

On a third point, I recall no flaming or other insults in the thread we have been asking for the Community's opinion regarding Board Election. Despite that you post an introductory letter calling some of the participants there fools. I find that insulting, much more than calling somebody a politician.

Lastly, it seems from your letter that you've been either informed only by one side about council's disagreements with board, or that you haven't been informed at all. There is following rules, and there's typolatry, with a huge space between them.
Adhering to every single word of the Bylaws to interpret them as convenient at the moment, not allowing tech staff to appoint maintainers without official BoD meeting (scheduled weeks later) when all directors agreed by email, sending out NDA's to corporations that never asked for them and demanding contracts from a company that has offered to provide free hosting, without even providing a draft are some of our complaints towards HiFo.

I really appreciate the fact that you have come here to help, and I do believe we need somebody that knows more about building communities than we do. I for example have no experience whatsoever. However, please do not assume what's happening inside maemo and provide general advice, we are not fools.

Sincerely,

Michael Demetriou
Maemo Community Council

Re: Intros
 

Welcome, Jim!
thanks for offering your help and expertise.

I think that's all we really bother about. With this approach you'll bring some highly appreciated common sense into HiFo which in the past acted in a way that made HiFo look quite the opposite, made community feel like getting patronized and outright insulted maemo community council. Highlight of this mindset been the proposition that maemo community council != HiFo council, allegedly never meant to be, and basically maemo community council would have no word on the way HiFo BoD proceeds, despite the very creators and fathers of HiFo explained that the contrary been intended when HiFo council been introduced into bylaws. Quazix described all that as "communication problems", I'm not quite sure it was just that.
Anyway I think HiFo will be a better thing with you on board, and I appreciate you taking a seat in BoD. Nevertheless we need a re-election for HiFo since too many bad feelings, namecalling, and problems with following the bylaws happened during last few weeks and HiFo itself needs such re-election for various reasons now. I hope you'll throw your hat into the ring and I'm rather sure you'll make it to one of the top ranks on any such vote.

See you at maemo council meeting IRC:(freenode.org)#maemo-meeting Friday 1800UTC
cheers
jOERG

Re: Intros
 

First and foremost, thank you for your introduction. While it may not have had the desired impact, it's good to see communication with the community is a priority. I'm also glad to see you asking the community if they desire your presence here. That alone speaks volumes.

Understand, this was not how things were presented to the community. No fault of yours, I get that. But keep in mind that some/most of the anger you're hearing has less to do with who you are or what you're saying than with the context in which it's being interpreted. In some cases, things said can be misinterpreted as insults where none may have been intended (in both directions), like this:

There's a large difference between a fool and someone who's been fooled. Many here feel they've been tricked or fooled into supporting something that they now no longer recognize.

Consider in the future that you may not be aware of how things have happened, and may not be fully up to speed on the topics at hand. Commenting on things you don't understand without seeking input first, to some, would be consider foolish. Some see you in that light. Combined with other factors around your presentation, it's not unreasonable that they are upset by how they perceive things to be unfolding.

Agreed, which is why some of the community is upset about what it perceives as the Board not following those rules. I for one am not certain that the letter of the law has been followed here, and I was involved in the writing and refining of them. I can tell you with certainty that the spirit of the law has not been followed.

I think you need to educate yourself before speaking on this.

Maemo is a commercial product created by Nokia. At no point can the community or HiFo sell it, give it away, or authorize it's use in another product. While some rights are being transferred from Nokia to HiFo, some are not. I'm still reading the terms of the contract, but I can tell you that some of the base code for portions of Maemo will remain closed due to third party agreements with Nokia if not for Nokia's own sake.

That said, many portions of the ecosystem around Maemo are already in, or are finding their ways to other projects. And commits from this community going up-stream in FOSS components have benefited several other cell based and ARM based communities.

I'd also like to point out that while there is an over-arching goal for HiFo to promote an open arena for portable devices, it's first and foremost commitment is to keep this community alive. The mission statement in the bylaws is very clear on that point, placing it before the other objectives and goals.

I think that is in part what's being proposed by holding new elections as soon as possible (e.g. announcing them at the next Foundation meeting, which is overdue at this point). This allows the community to (re)consider you, Rob, myself, and any new potential candidates from the community. This is in the spirit and the letter of the bylaws of the Foundation, and what the community clearly is calling for at this point.

As Directors, we can call that election at any time for the Board. Think of it as a vote of confidence in a normal Board setting, but applied to all members equally instead of just the chairman or one particular member. It's really not that complex, but will take over a month to do. It's an intentionally slow paced process and requires little additional time on behalf of standing members.

I for one see a great need to allow the community to validate (or rebuff) the current members of the board, since all of the directors have now been appointed, not elected as intended and desired by the community.

In the mean time, we can continue to act and resolve these critical issues in our infrastructure. But we must be mindful of the community while doing so.

Re: Intros
 

so much for dreaming a little, or for visionary input, huh?
nobody expects to see Maemo running on a super-duper-N9000 with Quadcore mobile CPU & 4GB or RAM of course, but... what about all the developments that followed up on Maemo and / or MeeGo?
we see NitDroid (a port of Android to the NOKIA Internet Tablets, N8x0, N900 or N9) but how about seeing one of those "developments" once being flashed on an Android device?
unthinkable?
i missed (i nearly was going to type "gladly") out on the Jolla Gate, but still, my understanding was that we should be glad if we can run Sailfish (Jolla's oncoming OS developed on MeeGo respectively a couple community driven software's derived thereof) on N9s, mostly because that's what Jolla used as development devices...

maybe, maybe, external input could help us steer towards a "real" open-source mobile OS?
:confused: :eek:

give Jim some slack, maybe?
i know you, Woody, are one of those pedantic members who try your best to read all posts before replying to a thread but... do you expect a guy who is just "landed" to be aware of all the finesse (though the word doesn't quite cover it :rolleyes:) of TMO?
'nuff said :mad:

see above... :|

i nearly decided against posting 'cuz your post pretty much addressed all the points that came to my mind when reading Jim's letter, but then...
the tone of some of your § didn't quite seem that welcoming after all :(



(nice one ;))
Jim,

as others already did i would like to thank you for taking the time to post you letter and thereby answering most if not all of our questions / concerns.
considering your curriculum i suspect you are used to the law of the jungle that sometimes prevail on forums...
this one is no exception ;)

Re: Intros
 

You misunderstand what I'm saying. Yes, efforts here are helping to build that thing we all hoped Maemo (and MeeGo and Tizen and Sailfish and...) would become: A truly open-source mobile device. But all the dreaming and vision in the world won't change the fact that it's highly unlikely we will see future devices running Maemo.

Yes, which is in part why I've said we need to examine this and see if it makes sense. My lack of immediate open embrace of this idea does not imply my rejection of it.

No. But I also don't expect them to imply others are fools when they have a different opinion or concerns. Especially when there's a clear lack of understanding on both sides.

I've been in Jims position in the past. Being pulled into a foreign group that was just as misinformed about who I was, as I was about them. The first step is to clarify what is real and what both are thinking and expecting. It is not to lash out against others, regardless if their concerns are misdirected or potentially valid.

The tone of my legal-wrangling (for those unfamiliar with the symbol) again has nothing to do with Jim, and I said as much. It has more to do with the process of what's going on here. I agree with Jim that we need to follow the legal bits. But I doubt Jim as read those fully yet. Again, commenting on something when you haven't done the research, and implying impropriety from others, does not strike a positive chord with me.

Andrew sums my legal concerns up nicely in the MWKN. You'll note, there's not a concern about the appointments, or the people appointed, but about process.

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

Welcome Jim. I'm sure your experience can be a great asset to the foundation.

Re: Intros
 

Those are my summaries, actually.* ;)

I was initially rather nonplussed by Jim's appointment, the context of the appointment being my primary issue of contention, but reading this introduction leaves me much more encouraged by the kind of competence and attitude Jim can bring to the table. It strikes me as an attitude very much inline with my own beliefs.

I'd like to state my agreement with Woody's point: it's about the context of the appointment and not anything personal about you, Jim.

I am worried about an elected body that's made up only of appointed members, about the directions SD69 seems to want to take the foundation in, and about the standing the Hildon Foundation currently seems to have with the community. I think an election would be a good way to realign its focus and change some of those negative perceptions. The timing of the election, however, I'm not sure about given that the board is presently still in active negotiations with Nokia. . . .

*Jaffa, fiferboy, myself, and occasionally timsamoff all write for MWKN, you can find the author of a particular story summary in the "Editor:" line underneath the title.

Re: Intros
 

Thanks for the link, which, to me, served somewhat as a kind of primer, a HiFo Trouble for Dummies.

I have no idea about all the things involved, what's needed and what's not but I hope Jimjag is able to help things clear up.

It seems a bit silly to react in a thread so full of esoteric stuff, but seeing this thread hardly gets any reaction at all I figured I might as well show my support for all of you working hard to keep this community alive. Thanks.

Re: Intros
 

Personally, reading his reaction to some of the rude/aggressive posts, I could understand why he reacted that way, if I saw people making the same suggestions about me, I'd react similarly.
The person who made the most inflammatory remarks seemed to have very little solid basis for being as paranoid/rude as he was...
Nor does he have a history if informing himself fully about the entire HiFo evolution over the past 12mth+, rarely (if ever) have I seen him partake in any of the big discussions surrounding it.
Anyway, good that we're now moving towards an election, & good that we still have at least some people willing to do their best to keep the torch burning...

Re: Intros
 

presuming you are referring to stenny's post?
maybe you know the figure for real, but personally the post strikes me as very similar though somewhat less desperate as those of the last Council member that the community had to quick out of function, not even a year ago :mad:

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

Howslife jim:)

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

A quick note to all; this is a personal introduction thread not one whereby you speculate about a registered member hiding behind another account.

If you think someone is breaking forum rules report and let the moderators/administrators do their job. However, indirectly blaming someone WITHOUT any conclusive evidence is considered flaming and against forum rules.

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

^stud got my point . Gud job

Re: Intros
 

Thx for the posting...

I did not "stay away." As I hopefully indicated, I didn't even know that I was proposed to this community. As far as I knew, we were still in the stages of discussing whether or not I was suitable for the position and whether or not I would actually join.

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

Coming to shape slowly stedily:)

Re: Intros
 

I get it as well... I've been trolled into a post or two myself, as everyone knows. The problem is, doing so does not make a very good first impression. Especially when there's misunderstanding on both sides about what's going on. I'm not faulting Jim for that (too much), as we're all human.

What needs to happen now is simple. A quick catch-up for everyone on where we're at and what's going on. Then a setup for elections to validate that the current Directors (and/or new nominees) are acting in the interest of the community.

It would seem Jim would be in agreement on this, since it would answer his question as to the communities feeling on having him on board. (Jim, please do comment on this. I would like your perspective on it.)

It also would give Jim over a month to get up to speed, and to present himself to the community so we/they can get to know him better. I think, given that chance, the community will have a better chance at assessing the skills and experience Jim has to offer to the Foundation, vs the "gut reaction" that's been expressed here.

I agree. At this point, I think it's prudent to call elections. I will propose this at the next Board meeting, which must happen very soon.

FWIW:
I don't think elections will interfere with the Nokia negotiations, as the election process won't finish (and no potential Director changes would happen) until mid to late April. By then all negotiations should be finalized and HiFo should have ownership of everything needed to maintain the infrastructure.

I would suggest that we push the election out (to a maximum of 45 days, per the bylaws) to allow the Council and Board elections to coincide. I feel this would be the best solution for the community as a whole, vs having segmented or offset elections close to each other.

I believe this is something we must legally do as well. Since Tim's resignation occurred before my acceptance, and my acceptance was not done until past the 7 day period from Ivan's formal resignation. Technically, there was a period with fewer than three Director positions occupied for over seven days. That should trigger an election.

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

Brilliant communicator, as always...

Re: Intros
 

I have not and will not ever take part in either council. I only started paying attention to the hildon foundation when my n900 stopped updating. All I want to see is the lights stay on. I'm not convinced it's going to happen, but I'm hopeful.

Re: Intros
 

So you are among those who stand by and do nothing but just expect that everything will work out anyway?

Re: Intros
 

No, I'm going to stand by and do nothing. I have no expectations.

Okey stenny, then I will put you on the red list ;)

Re: Intros
 

IMO, the will of the community must always hold sway, so I am +1 on calling for an election.

I will also state that it might be better, easier and more "logical" for the community to consider creating a sort of Board Advisor position for HiFo, and saving the actual director positions for those who have already shown their merit in the community.

Re: Intros
 

Ivan resigned on Tuesday, February 26 and Tim resigned on Monday, March 4. Their letters are on the website.

Woody and Jim were appointed on Monday, March 4. http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...51&postcount=5 Even if one assumes (mistakenly I think) that Woody's acceptance was necessary, that was done no later than Tuesday, March 5. http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...87#post1327087

So election was not triggered under the ByLaws. It should not be surprising I conclude this as that is why I expedited the appointments as a Director.

I say the following in my capacity as Secretary for the Foundation consistent with the Board Register required under the current bylaws. If you want to proceed with an election, I suggest that your proposal includes an appropriate amendment to the ByLaws. I will consider further comments if anyone thinks an election was triggered. Since maemo.org will be going down temporarily, if anyone has comments, please email them to board@hildonfoundation.org. The submitted comments will be attempted to be made public in some fashion.

(Jim, I need the official address you want to use for the Foundation) to record in the Board Register).

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

I think either we take date of written resign-letter and date of written acceptance-letter, which then would be Date: 2013-02-26 11:42 for Ivan finally resigning (his non-written resignation been several days before) and Date: 2013-03-09 01:55 woody's written acceptance

Or we assume there's a formal meeting with voice recorder and whatnot needed to install new BoD into their position.

Or we accept informal notice, then that's also >7 days between Ivan's first notice and Woody's first notice or even Rob's first post stating he's going to appoint Woody and Jim (sorry, can't just pick the relevant dates out of my mail threads, I'm sure you'll be able to confirm with your copy of related mails/posts)

Either way if we don't apply different rules for similr processes, we always have >7 days of HiFo with less than 3

cheers
jOERG

[edit] on a sidenote: tmo will _not_ go down, see http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php...97#post1328897

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

Yeah 45 days would be fine to coinside:)

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

I need to review the bylaws, but in general, a resignation is not active until "accepted", at which point I think the clock should start ticking. A resignation is, according to RRO, "a Request to Be Excused from a Duty."

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

I'm quite happy to hear this. :)

Which is what happened here initially. The three that were elected were elected because of their merit in the community, and additional committee positions (non-Director) were added for important tasks, like Treasurer, Communications, and Legal Advisor. All three elected members had been Council in the past, and were well known to the community for other works and contributions to the community. Rob, who was initially Legal Advisor, and was later appointed in at Randal's exit, was also a past Council member. (As am I.)

PS: If this is you hinting at having an Advisory position instead of a Directorship, I'd like to say that I think your input would be a highly valuable commodity to HiFo in either capacity.

Re: Intros
 

I disagree. I believe it would be a hard to argue that a written resignation, sent as and e-mail attachment, is required to start the clock, but that appointment (without verbal or written acceptance or acknowledgement) is fine for stopping it.

You're also wrong in the math part. My acceptance, even if in the window you declare, didn't push us up to 3. Jim already noted that his lack of participation here was mainly because he was unaware he had been nominated. I'd hardly call that an acceptance, until his post(s) here indicating his conditional acceptance.

That makes the timeframe, to me, look like this:
2013-02-25: Rob + Ivan + Tim = 3
2013-02-26: Rob + Tim = 2
2013-03-04: Rob = 1
2013-03-05: Rob + Woody = 2
2013-03-10: Rob + Woody + JimJag = 3

Even if it were arguable that nomination was sufficient to stop the clock, this is again a letter of the law vs a spirit of the law item.

The 7 day clause was put in to prevent the loss of a single Director on a 3 Director board from causing immediate elections that could disrupt important ongoing activity. When all three elected Directors are no longer Directors, and current activity will not be destabilized by starting this 45 day process... I'd say it's time to do it.

From the current tally so far, it would appear that Jim and I both are for starting the election process. It seems a rather simple task, and as I noted, one that shouldn't interfere with the current transitions in process. I will prepare a time-table and present it to both Council and Board. We can then move that as a priority topic at the next meeting.

The only real burdens here actually falls on Council and myself. My burden being to get the karma and voting systems back up and fully running so we can actually hold the upcoming elections. Something I need to do anyway for the upcoming Council election.

Actually, the voting system is running now, but simply lacks historic data, which I can re-add at any time now that I've found the backup file for that data. The karma system I am looking into still. It's partially functional, but is not computing some of the karma values, notably those for wiki, bugs, and TMO.

Re: Intros
 

For what purpose? The Bylaws clearly state that the Board may initiate any action, which would include calling for elections, on a majority vote. Amending the ByLaws would simply delay things, which is not desirable to anyone. Except maybe you, based on how hard you're fighting it, when it's clear 2 of the 3 Directors, all of Council, and many members here are all calling for elections.

Re: Intros
 

SD69. I am really trying to figure out why you are (re)acting like this. I can't.

Reading the above my only feeling is a big W-T-F in red letters. You seem to be sticking to your foundation and your ByLaws and your "directorship" like a little child with a new toy.

It seems that the general feeling around the community is that new elections are required (*I* personally would vote for disbanding this useless one-man show). The only person against it seems to be you, the only reason being your reading of the ByLaws, which for all I care could be correct, but honestly I don't care, and *you* should not care either.

If you refuse to hold elections or generally to act on behalf of the maemo community then I think it's time to separate yourself (foundation) from the rest of the community.

I still have not read or heard a reason why this foundation is needed. The DNS entry now seems to be pointing to the right place.

Re: Intros
 

Please stop saying this is a "one man show", it's clearly not. HiFo was founded by Council for the community to handle items that the Council (and/or community) could not legally handle. Currently there are three Directors, myself being one of them, as well as a founder of the organization. This was a "one man show" for all of about 2 days.

Again, Rob != Foundation.

Yes... Because current Council and the technical team (which has done an outstanding job, btw) was able to talk Nokia into pointing their DNS at our servers. Make no mistake, Nokia still holds the keys. One of the primary points of HiFo is that we can be self-contained, so that if Nokia goes away (or changes it's mind later, or with a new CEO) we don't vanish.

The Foundation *is* needed by the community. It's needed to hold the legal rights that we should have already signed off on with Nokia. Those rights include things like being able to handle DNS (which also requires a legal entity).

It's also needed to handle a bank account, as banks don't generally open accounts for "that mob of people on the internet". Those funds will hopefully be used to fund future infrastructure hardware purchases, hosting costs, maybe coding competitions, or a number of other things important to, or needed by, the community.

HiFo is also needed as a front-end for businesses of any type to do work with us. That includes banks, hosting services, hardware vendors, other NFP groups looking to provide or exchange services (like our current host), and anyone wanting to do anything that may involve financial or legal commitments.

Could we do it without that? Sure, if we had someone willing to take on the entire burden of doing all this, in their own name. But then the community would be at the whim of that one person, which clearly is something you dislike right now (and others have disliked in the past).

HiFo is a tool. One which can be bound to hold rights and liabilities, and that can be governed by members selected by the community. HiFo is not "the enemy" any more than a backhoe is the enemy of a house. It can be used to build, maintain, or destroy, based on who's driving it. Don't blame the tool (or throw it away) because of the actions of current driver.

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

The comments contain a couple different theories as to how the 7 day period to trigger a Board election should be calculated, none of which refers to the actual language in the Bylaws for vacating and filling positions, which is as follows:

"Any Director may vacate their position by notifying the Board in writing of their intention to do so.

Any vacancy may be filled by a successor chosen by a majority of the remaining Directors..."


So it is the bylaws which state different rules for vacating a position versus filling a vacant position. In particular, there is no requirement that a successor has to indicate that they accept their appointment, in writing or otherwise, in order for a vacant position to be filled. The only requirement is that the successor be "chosen" by a majority of the remaining Directors within 7 days.

I am not opposed to having elections and was one of the three people who agreed that the initial Board of Directors should be decided according to election results. My concern was that failing to follow the Bylaws would jeopardize the Foundation.

Another concern that hasn't been addressed is that, if the current Board is not valid, and it executes some contract, then the contract would be invalid and then there is a worse problem of correcting the invalid contract. Or the contract can't be executed until the election is over, which is a bad delay. The bylaws also state that the Board elections should start immediately if there are less than 3 filled Board positions for more than 7 days. They weren't immediately started and I have heard suggestions of intentionally delaying the election to coincide with the Maemo Community Council election. And there is also not a Hildon Foundation Council that has set the membership and election rules for the Foundation (even though if it was the responsibility of the Board, it is still the current circumstance). So pursuing Board elections seems inappropriate.

I have considered the alternative of having an Executive Director or other person handle the Foundation's day-to-day business affairs. If a broad consensus can be reached by the community on such a person, then that may be a preferable solution.

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

The following post by Woody which contains a description of the 7 day period has been brought to my attention (thanks!). It confirms that 7 days is the time period in which to decide and to "appoint another director". There is no mention of a need for acceptance of the appointment within 7 days.

http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=104

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

I would love to spend the time to get into researching case law/precedent, both for the USA's federal level, and for the state where HiFo is registered, to see if your interpretation here is sound. Sincerely, actually. I understand the value of addressing this form the legality side. Unfortunately, I don't have that kind of time.

But near as I can tell, you're playing word games with the term "appoint". Your argument depends on the supposition that the word "appoint" in this context means "pick a person that is wanted (and tell them about it I hope)". But you know very well that a bulk of the time, people don't take the word "appoint" to mean that, and more importantly, when they do, the context clearly indicates that. Usually, the expected meaning of "appoint" is "(previous meaning), and that person accepted".

It's a flaw of the English language, in other words, that lets you make this argument (that "appoint" can mean both "picked for a position" and "picked for a position and actually got into that position (either by accepting it, or clearing other prerequisites)"), not a clear case that that is the appropriate interpretation.