Hmmm. The last few times I've tried to explain my position there I got flamed...

But I'll give it a shot.

I was taken to task for saying this would be an important term when I last ran and then recently saying we (although I should have said "I") knew it could likely be a "lame duck" term as well. I want to make clear that I held both thoughts concurrently before the last election and had indeed expressed some doubt over the council's continuation at the time. With that said, my goal was to work with the other 4 and find ways of keeping a lame duck situation from occurring. I think we were largely successful, as Jaffa has highlighted.

However, my crystal ball continues to fail. I do see a need for the council, particularly around getting Maemo opened as much as possible. But predicting the Nokia side of things has been a crap shoot.

I think the next batch of representatives need to be stubborn but open-minded. I think they'll need to pick their battles wisely. They should also communicate early to explain their individual thoughts on the council's purpose and come to a consensus on how to speak and act as a group. And to address opening Maemo, they'll need to be equal parts deep-tech guru and diplomat. We'll need people who understand the intricacies involved in opening Maemo further and who can communicate plans and possibilities clearly to Nokia. To that extent, I would certainly like to see any of the other 4 run again.

I will skip the next term as promised. However, unless something interferes, I will continue here as a moderator and will support the next council 100% in any way I can.

Just vote!