View Single Post
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#49
Originally Posted by misterc View Post
EDIT: here is my no-no idea about hildon foundation...
As noted previously in the thread, we can not use the name Maemo, as it is trademarked by Nokia, and Nokia has already said it will not transfer the trademark, and would probably take issue with our legal entity taking that as part of the name.

Originally Posted by misterc View Post
do we still need a Council after the NFP foundation is created and has taken over?
This was discussed on the mailing list some time ago, and a rather thorough explanation was given. Unfortunately because I replied from the wrong account, the mail is still awaiting moderation there. (Which apparently now has no moderator?)

This is the relevant discussion from my correspondence archives:
As to your question on why we are not mixing the roles of Board and Council:

The Board (as currently envisioned by the Council and the bylaws) would be responsible for managerial, financial, contractual and legal aspects of maintaining the assets of the Maemo community. These are the sort of things that, to date, Nokia has handled or delegated to a service provider. Part of the desire to retain this separation is therefore historical, as it's a familiar and established framework.

I (and others) also think it would be bad if the new nonprofit had a flat organizational structure (Council == Board) as it would put too much demand on a smaller group of volunteers. Mixing the roles would imply/command that members meet both skill sets, in what is already a dwindling membership pool. Placing extra burden on a smaller group seems an ill choice to make.

Personally, I know there are some that are willing and able to handle both roles. To that end, I've made the suggestion that running for a position in one group should not be to forced exclusion of the other. Said another way: One person could opt to run for both bodies, but it should not be mandated that a person running for one must (or must not) run for the other. We are still discussing that internally, but I think we as Council agree on this point.

Finally, consider that keeping a separation of roles allows the community more choice. We *may* be able to entice more volunteers into narrower roles, where they may not have consider running for a broader position. And while some candidates may run for both positions, the community may not feel comfortable with a particular candidate in both roles. Keeping them separate allows the community to elect someone for one role without electing them to both.

For all of these reasons, we see a clear and valid reason for continuing this division of responsibilities. If that changes, the community can always change how things work to fit the needs of the community as it evolves.

Thank you again for your input and questions. We really do need the input of the community to make sure we're going in the right direction. This really is about community, since without all if you, nothing we do will mean much of anything..
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
 

The Following User Says Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post: