tl;dr: council cannot "force board into anything". Board/e.V. needs to define in own bylaws that they never will go rogue and do things the community doesn't want them to do. And e.V. has to seek for community approving that the e.V. bylaws efficiently enforce this. Council will help on this approval by running a referendum.



it's completely incredible how people here
1) invent an e.V that by design is set up to obsolete the council, instead of contenting itself with acting as a pretty normal supporting entity doing the legal and "business" coordination and bookkeeping work for the community
2) all the time babble about nonsense like "just clearly define/limit Councils' responsibilities in a way that it cannot force board into anything" while it's obvious to everybody with a brain to think with that an e.V. or board or whatever cannot "get forced" to do anything by an entity outside of the e.V. structures. It would've been duty of the guys that designed the bylaws of such e.V. to define the ways the e.V. is maybe obliged to act in best interest of what council asks for. Until such bylaw paragraphs/rules are defined, no council outside of the e.V. could force the e.V. or parts of it to do *anything*. And there is no "legal requirement" for dunnowhat nonsense limitations of what a e.V. can define they want to accept and obey for own ruleset/agenda.

When I hire a tax adviser, I can not force him to do anything illegal. Nevertheless he must not do anything with my tax declaration or bank account he thinks is funny but I didn't instruct him to do. When maemo community (with their long established proven-to-work representative entity 'council') 'hire' an e.V. to manage all assets for them, such e.V can not get forced to do anything illegal, but same time isn't entitled to do whatever they like with the maemo community assets. So it's council that formulates intentions (based on what the community at large instructs council to try and achieve / implement / facilitate) and it's such asset manager e.V to listen to such intentions and find ways to turn them into lawful action. When the asset manager e.V. bluntly refuses to act in best interest of maemo community and council, there should be ways the council could instruct the e.V to do something about that, and there needs to be a paragraph in e.V.'s bylaws that binds the e.V. to actually obey council's instruction literally in this particular specific case. It's up to the designers of bylaws to find the right methods to handle this case, be it a general assembly that discusses the case and if it can't moderate between council and board will search for help from a lawyer who decides if e.V according to own rules is acting in best interest of maemo community and council doesn't see that, or if council is right and e.V is not acting in best interest of community. Or whatever else the e.V. bylaw designers may come up with to solve the dissent case in a lawful way that doesn't discriminate the maemo community at large. And it's up to the community at large to decide in a referendum if the bylaws of such e.V. are suited for what the community would like to see as their asset manager. The community is well-advised to make sure the bylaws have clear statements about the e.V. being bound to act in community's best interest (as expressed via council which got elected by community and between elections polls community's interests by suitable means), and to also have a close look how this gets enforced in case the e.V. decides to ignore community and council. Particularly community is well-adviced to not have the bylaws of an asset manager e.V redefine what the community actually is (garage membership vs e.V membership), unless the community wants to abolish itself.
(btw it is, or whould have been, HiFo's legal duty to not transfer the role/task of asset manager to any new entity like an e.V. before community agreed on that new entity being OK according to the above listed - as well as other relevant - aspects. And it is, or would have been, council's duty to enforce this. Worst case by triggering a "red button" re-election of HiFo board and council, when board ignores council's request to have e.V. bylaws approved by a referendum. And by resorting to law enforcement means when HiFo ignores even the red-button and nevertheless proceeds to transfer assets to a new entity that not been approved by community yet).

All the time I read arguments like "when e.V. is legal owner of the assets then e.V. may do whatever they like with those assets - that's a legal requirement". This is nonsense! When my tax adviser has full access to my company's bank account, then the bank's legal requirements (rather: contract fineprint - their "bylaws") say he *can* do whatever he likes on that account (since the bank isn't up to checking what the tax advisor does and if that's a correct thing to do) - nevertheless he is not entitled to do whatever he likes on my company's bank account, he needs to act in my best interest and he even may get sued when he doesn't. Still I cannot force him to do anything illegal, that's the nonsense argument boiled in idiocy broth.

introducing such general assembly as an entity to overrule/bypass the (not sufficiently clearly defined) general e.V. purpose of acting as supporter for maemo community and only as such, was the root messup that hardly get fixed now.
It probably been done in a spirit of "council is evil, we want to improve democracy in maemo community" - don't ask me where this weird notion arisen from

anyway, good luck again. I keep myself detached from this madness, I can't cope with it any longer

/j