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.