You did very well appointing the directors. Please read my comment again

What really makes me wonder...
You find the last hidden tiny catch in the bylaws, but then again you completely miss to grok the core statement in plain english text, where from comes this strange difference in capabilities?
Not a single word in qwazix' post criticized your appointment of Jim or Woody, it's the very way how you argue and put your rationale that we criticize. And your answer been the best example.

[edit] When this obscure appointment of MCC "for daily maemo business" by HiFo BoD was made and you joined that meeting, are you sure the other two BoD members were on same page as you regarding the implications and meaning of that decision? Or did you consult them to phrase that decision and meeting minutes in such a way that everybody thought HiFo did the right thing while now you claim MCC never been meant to be a HFC? Or was it maybe like that: Appointing MCC as HFC was *exactly* what been decided in that meeting, but somebody wrote the meeting minutes in a way so they were ambiguous to the point of no recognition. Who wrote the meeting minutes?

And one more point I honestly like to get explained by you since I really suck at reading extremely long and infested with lawyer speech bylaws but I know you know them by heart: WHAT (except for calling elections of both bodies) is the exact purpose and duty of the postulated/assumed Hildon Foundation Council, if we'd take it as a 3rd entity besides BoD and MCC? Has such entity any meaning and rationale besides a Maemo Community Council? And has a BoD any legitimity without any such "higher instance" that could call a big reset when stuff goes awry? For me it's clear that HFC is the controlling instance (or call it judge) of BoD, to guarantee that BoD behaves. This purpose it completely moot when BoD appoints HFC at own discretion, just as they feel it helps their own plot.

To me it seems we should maybe ask those who wrote the bylaws and those who decided on that BoD meeting that you quote so often, what it actually was they thought they wrote and decided. After all in real life the meaning of a written statement depends also on the notion and context in the mind of the writer, and what they communicate to the recipients on sidebands not to be found in the written text itself - this determines a lot how others understand that text. In all honesty not only all 3 current MCC members but also authors of the bylaws and former BoD and council members (of this term) expressed their take on it that MCC been appointed by BoD for HFC. One of them is even one of your BoD peers, so even BoD itself isn't unanimous about whether MCC=HFC or not. Now you bash us (MCC) for not complying with your way to read things and spit poison that we were a rogue bunch who wants to seize power. :-/ No, Rob, we don't want to seize power, we want to hand all power back to community, that's why we (MCC/HFC) called elections of both bodies, also containing a first draft of the election rules. You not supporting this move in every possible way you can is not the right way, please rethink.


BR
jOERG

Are you, or are you not for elections? I know the answer already.

As for concerns on following the ByLaws, the way forward is quite simple: Appoint the existing MCC as HFC (which I believe was already done) so they can produce the needed election criteria. Then all of this follows the ByLaws in a happy, legal way. Yet you resist this, and claim the two were never fully made the same. Why?

I do not believe anyone is claiming the existing Directors are invalid in any way. Even if the appointments happened after the window, they're still valid. The question is if there is a documented legal need for Board elections. I feel the answer to that is yes, you feel otherwise. Even if there's not a legal need for it, the community and current Council have called for it. That should be enough to hold call for one and use existing rules to make it happen.

Yes.. The last meeting of the Board was in February. When I was brought on as a Director, the very first thing I did was ask for a meeting to be called. I even asked that we hold a meeting with all available members (You and I, as Jim was unresponsive) just to cover some of the needed topics that wouldn't require a unanimous vote. That was over a month ago.

I CC'ed in Council for most of those e-mails, because I've played this particular game with you before. The one where if things aren't going your way, you go silent.

Some of the blame may be misplaced. But a good chunk of this is squarely hinging on you at this point. Through delay and silence you've reached the point of jeopardizing this community though inaction. The Nokia and IPHH contracts are still not signed. Funds for major items, like certificates and hardware already purchased and in use, are languishing. The agenda of the next Board meeting has over 15 topics.

Despite my offering direct contact details, and near 24/7 availability, I have trouble getting an e-mail reply, yet alone a meeting setup. Yet you seem to find time to post things on the HiFo blog, debating the legality of their actions, and comment here.

Even the currently tentative meeting on Friday is still being held up as tentative because of a lack of reply from Jim (whom I don't think is getting all the e-mail from here). We cannot and should not hold up active business for having all of us at the meeting. Even if he can't make that time, we have 2/3 of the Directors, and should at least move forward on items we agree upon that need attention.

So sad, I was going to insert a sad face picture but can't even muster the motivation to do that, so down.
Marxian, for the love of God, plz insert some comic relief, we need it at this point...

That referendum is already underway. That you don't know of it is indicative of your disconnect with what's going on in the community.

Said the officer to Rosa Parks? Sorry... just a though that went through my brain based on the timing.

What exactly should we be content with? Appointment? That you were so magnanimous to appoint others rapidly, as to not face an actual election? That you appointed someone outside the community, and now use their unavailability as an excuse to do nothing? What exactly are we to be content with?

We would very much like to. That's the issue here. We would like to have the pending contracts signed, so that we CAN move forward. We would like to have funds released for working and valid certificates for the systems and reimbursement for hardware that was purchased to keep things running. But all of this is being held up.

You've thanked my post, where I asked to set red fat line and start cooperating again, writing posts without accusations/blamings/etc. And, as a next thing, you write something like that quote above?!

You're not speaking in damn Senate, targeting the audience! And I don't mean that you're right or wrong in what you've have written, frankly, I don't care. What community expects from all of you, Board members and Councilors, is being able to cooperate and communicate. Period. How do you expect any collaboration, if you start writing post like that? You could write whatever afterwards, it's just spoiled, as your discussion partner become sparring partner, or even enemy.

Personally, I don't agree with 99% of SD60's interpretations, but he at least tried, and did exactly what was requested - just after my post, he wrote about problem he perceive, and wasn't accusing anyone of anything, ever less attacking.

OTOH, Council members (who seemed to have more sane argumentation about some merits) happily ignored request to assume "People mean well", and stop bashing discussion partners. Just great.

At this point, I'm equally disappointed in all of you. Is it so hard to understand, that you may have best argumentation in the word, but if you fail to discuss it at cooperative level with your organization's partners, you just fail to perform your duties?

We *don't* f'kin care who is right in this argument, again. We want you, BoD and Council, to start cooperating NOW - until that, you're both totally WRONG, and no matter of results, argument is LOST for Maemo Community.
---

Until you get to understand that, happy bashing each other in your kindergarten. I just hope, it won't be too late, then. I'm out, it's futile to waste energy here.

/Estel

A) what makes you think you're in the position to speak for the community at large?
B) what's your definition of "cooperation"?
C) what makes you think any such cooperation is what it's all about here, at all? It rather seems that community, 2/3 of BoD, and 3/3 of MCC are unanimously in agreement about what needs to get done. So what's that cooperation you ask for so desparately?
There's just one single cooperation that's not yet achieved: 1/3 of BoD having a meeting with his BoD peers and not blocking actions anymore.

Please don't badmouth a discussion just because it's not proceeding in a way that you - as self assigned discussion moderator - think is the only possible one. It's posts like yours that are at least similarly annoying and causing feelings of frustration in other readers of this thread. There is no immediate doom pending in one BoD member disagreeing with the rest of the world about how to proceed to sanitize this whole situation, there's not even lethal impact on maemo.org maintenance since we found our ways around most of the blockers this disagreement introduces. It's just we want to sort this out once and for all, so similar discussions will not happen again in future.

again: cooperation is all fine in maemo community, except for disagreement with 1/3 of HiFo about priorities and procedure how to go ahead. It's those who scream "maemo gonna die! OMG OMG can't you stop discussing and finally DO sth" who are *really* spreading FUD and general bad feelings in community.

cheers
jOERG

Estel, I appreciate the effort, but with the seemingly cooperative post SD69 invalidated the council with an "official" HiFo update that was clearly not approved by the rest of directors. I think cooperation has to come from both sides and it is clear that SD69 is not cooperating by delaying meetings for months now.

He also twisted your own words artistically by using your phrase hard reset, to apply it only to the Hildon Foundation Council, which in his notion is still a non-existent body, and not to the whole situation which clearly problematic.

I am all for a hard reset and I accept the possibility that I am also part of the problem. This problem however is going to solve itself in about 3 weeks when I will no longer be part of the council.

For the above: that would be appropriate way of answering, from the beginning (minus some comments about twisting words). In order to start talking (as opposed to "bashing") again, defining point of conflict is crucial.

So, your point is that "Update from Board" is fake, as it wasn't agreed by other 2 Board members? Woody and Jim could comment on it?

As for invalidating Council, I rather understand SD69's words as he is seeing you (Council) as Maemo Community Council, *not* Hildon Community Council, due to (in his opinion) bugs in bylaws. I also interpret "hard reset" of HCC as fixing this bug, not some malicious, sneaking insult.
---

As for other things, I don't think anyone is going to "define what cooperation is", or try to explain, why cooperation is better than outright conflict, and why Community want it, not your bashing show.

It shouldn't be kindergarten, and posts demanding that, are not helping, at all (I'm looking at you, joerg_rw). From head of tech staff, I would expect table, answering things asked for (urgent, soon-to-be-urgent, and important in long run) things, that tech staff expect from Board (like signing contracts, etc). that, and only that info - not spoiled by some accusations, clever talking, or politics in between. Believe it or not, but any hostility in post here, spoils it as whole, making it unreadable (even if important things are hidden inside, between bashing lines).

/Estel