... waiwaiwait

I read from Quim's response (and yours) that my post on that matter was not as clear as I think it was.

I wasn't talking about whatever Nokia (or Quim) said to the council or the authors/maintainers, nor was I questioning the decision making process.

(I don't know the facts, all I understood was that something had to be done quickly, and I think what you did was not only right, but the only way to do it. Period.)

Everything I said I said about the communications towards the community after the decision had been made and the packages were removed.

And this is why I cite the above paragraph of your post:
"…the members of the community that this directly affected, the authors of said packages as well as community council…"
It's my understanding that above all, it's the end users who are affected. They are because they can no longer download an application they saw the day before. Neither the council members nor the author are affected by this as much as a single end user. You could see questions coming up in this forum about the why and the how, and it took some time before everybody knew what had happened.

So from the point of this one end user who suddenly finds a package gone, the communication was only close to ideal. No damage done, actually, but one point on the list for the next time.

... well again, I trust you made the right decision and all that... but there's yet another aspect to it:

The whole thing brings up the question of independence from Nokia. In another thread, I wrote I wasn't convinced why moving free software to the Ovi Store would be desirable. My point then was that Ovi is under Nokia's control (unwanted content, go away) while maemo.org isn't and can host packages that are not endorsed by Nokia.

Of course I knew, when I wrote this, that maemo.org financially depends on Nokia, but I haven't yet seen them exercise their power here.

Even in this particular case, I don't see what you say happened last Friday as something "Nokia did". The way I read it something had to be done anyway, and Nokia issued a kind warning before it was too late. Right?

But you see where I'm heading? The more Nokia interferes, the clearer things must be communicated. It's crucial to tell in this case that it was not Nokia who deleted the packages without asking anyone. The way Quim explained it above (Quim talks to council, they try to get in contact with maintainers, community members take down packages) makes all of this acceptable even for someone who says: "Let Nokia pay for this community if they want, but let us decide for ourselves".
And I'm deeply convinced this is important. It's important because it's one of the assets that Maemo has: A powerful community that has established equally powerful decision making processes, including one for handling a high quality community repository.

So don't make people jump to conclusions ("Nokia's lawyers deleted..."), tell them how it was handled. Which Quim already did now.