I misunderstood. Would not do referendum about the Council because it works and there is no replacement entity to do its job yet - it is its responsibility to find its place within the eV structure if it wants to but it doesn't have to and it should be able to keep talking with the Board directly like it did before.

Absolutely!

I'd even go so far as to say it's MC e.V.'s resposibility to make sure Council can find its place within the e.V. structure. But I'm not the one to doubt that this was assured by MC e.V. statutes...

THIS is exactly one crucial point being subject to proposed referendum (see below).

With a Council within MC e.V., this is being granted. Exept for the "like it did before" part, since this time it's for real.
Today, communication between Board and Council is better than ever AFAIK.

~ ~ ~

If I was the one to set up a referendum, I'd put it something like this:

1) - Redefine Council roles (list them) and make sure despite all the confusion there is only 1 unified Council left (same approach as already seen ~2 years ago) which will be a body of MC e.V. Simple approach: define council work/duties and leave the rest for GA.

* considering the fact that by law, GA has to remain the ultimate power in an e.V., which entails:
- (re)electing Board (basically regular members' main duty)
- amanding Bylaws
- termination of the association

2) - Redefine Council roles (list them) and make sure Council will be a simple aggregation of interests instead of being part of a registered association. Council shall be detached from any corporation whatsoever. I am aware that in this case Council can't have a substantial word in regards to MC e.V. activities.

3) - I don't care about MC e.V. Simply leave Council as is, don't touch anything.

On a personal note, I don't really care much how those roles should exactly look like (anymore), as long as finally there'll be a broad, reasonable consensus.
Since THAT's what it's all about in a demoracy after all, isn't it?

MC e.V. admittedly may not exactly be democratic in regards to community and how it is or used to be represented by Council, but it has to be in regards to it's members, by law. No way around that, this is as much "All hail to the people" as you can ask for. And after thorough thought about it, I have to admit that it does make some sense that only those who give avowal shall have the last word. After all, it's not only good tradition that gave an e.V. the possibilities it has today, but also elucidation.

And to those notorious objection raisers: Please do raise your doubts and fears. Any good demoratic movement needs to bear an opposition which puts the finger to where it hurts. But also be aware of your possibilities, your influence by participation is just an application form away.

Win7 ehrm, now you are getting in over your head...

This is or at least was only about Council Election Rules - those need to be adapted to MCeV bylaws or we need to remove council from MCeV. Founding Council already accepted these bylaws iirc - just not sanctioned by the garage community.

Nothing about roles, this is about rUles. Council's duties beyond that are decided later if at all or already given by our bylaws.

I have to object to this statement.
The thread title reads "[RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V"
And I believe first post is consistent with that.

Nope...

Is about bylaws, election rules - position towards MCeV and if council is even still necessary and not about what roles or duties council will have or had. Sorry that I have to disagree so bluntly but it is a real pain to see such discussions defocussing within 29 pages (just in this thread).

Put simple, accept MCeV with its bylaws or in this case legal requirement to have its authority within its General Assembly (which is a meeting of all members, not a status or group you can join) or do not accept it -> MCeV will adapt to remove the council from its bylaws (change some inner workings like who calls in meetings, holds elections and stuff). You may or may not add the option to abandon council but personally that is not an option I would even present.

Please recheck. IIRC at last I explicitly gave a conditional "YES" only valid when MCeV bylaws were compatible with council bylaws, as always been a requirement towards those who drafted the MCeV bylaws. I've been told the bylaws WERE COMPATIBLE and since I had doubts about that assurance being true, I explicitly bound my "yes" to that condition.

It should be obvious and common sense that not council rules need to adapt to MCeV rules, but the other way around. Fixing minor flaws in council rules wording (e.g. references to Nokia) is completely independant of this

BR
/jOERG

No roles without rules defining them I guess.
Basically, it's about taking responsibility and sharing duties.

Joerg, it is German Law you are talking about changing, good luck with that. It is either Council adapting and having limited powers within MCeV or not adapting and having no powers, you may reflect your choice in an upcoming referendum it seems.

I'm not talking about changing *anything*, I'm talking about lies blantantly told into my face. And about me rejecting to surrender to those lies.

So we are at it again. Bylaws have been made up without you being able to read them - in the shadows. As you are able to write I guess you are able to read too. It really breaks down to an actual minor detail, minor as at some point MCeV might even be bigger as the usual amount of votes as it is 1/4 already. If anybody wanted to overpower or exclude council somebody could have moved fwd in that direction at some point but didn't. So if this is really just about you being lied to. Move on already, you are not the only one being lied to! Words have been said, trust has been destroyed... Have fun, I'm out.