View Single Post
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#47
Originally Posted by shawnjefferson View Post
Why are we trying to limit the power of the "GA", which is actually the Maemo community? GA=maemo community.This is, of course, assuming that the GA is the most inclusive group it can be, and I believe it should be.
GA is NOT "the community". No matter how hard you try to convince everybody it was. Aside from "the maemo comunity" clearly being defined in Maemo Council Election Rules as well as HiFo bylaws as "those with a garage account plus some other requirements regarding karma", and for sure nowhere is a note about "BoD can accept or reject applications for regular garage membership", I can give you two very simple examples:
1) one of our sysops will never become a regular member of MCeV since he doesn't like his identity / full name getting published/disclosed. It's been Council that managed this case assuring him to keep the data private. I wouldn't trust in a MCeV regarding that.
2) I know of several community members that live in countries that would not even offer any method to transfer membership fees to Germany, neither by PayPal nor by money transfer. Moving HiFo to Germany since the payments (when ever due) are less complicated than when done from USA to Germany, and then expecting all "community members" paying membership fees, doing same cumbersome money transfer from any place in the world? And those who already donated now have to pay *again* so they are allowed to have a word what's going to happen with their donations? Makes no sense at all. Remind me again please: why exactly we *need* that MCeV?
And I can tell you that FOSS communities are generally pretty averse of both disclosing their identity and paying for being allowed to participate in a FOSS project.
Originally Posted by shawnjefferson View Post
But I'm curious, Joerg, why do you think the MCeV concept is flawed? I'm not asking about what the HiFO or CC is now, I'm asking about what the MCeV could be and how it might work better than what we currently have. Which you have to admit, is not working for various reasons.
I never said that MCe.V. is flawed per se. Please read my post again, I actually said "Generally nothing would be wrong with MCeV when it had no GA that clearly conflicts with Maemo Council Rules"
And I disagree completely with a "is not working for various reasons". Except for all this bickering from those who want new things since new must be better than old, nothing is "not working" in current maemo community and its management. The biggest problem is that we already have too few volunteers, and many of those that are actually volunteering have no clue about what are the tasks pending. So excuse me when I don't see how a "GA assigning tasks to a new council invented by GA on demand" will ever fly. Best thing about GA: We don't need it as a maximum inclusive group, we have the true maemo community already. The only one who needs a GA is a German eingetragener Verein, but there's no law that tells that this GA has to be of a maximum possible size, nor that it's not allowed to listen and obey to the true maemo community that's already well defined and existing.

Last edited by joerg_rw; 2014-09-29 at 04:59.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post: