Page 4 of 10 « First 23 4 56 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
momcilo is offline momcilo
2011-08-18 , 21:14
Posts: 673 | Thanked: 856 times | Joined on Mar 2006
#31
Originally Posted by timoph View Post
I disagree and want to see the option qole proposed to be included in the vote (if there's going to be one).

I don't mind the third option as long as the delay is not too great (4-6 months) instead of end of 2012.

In the case of short period, it is wise, since it allows for graceful recovery without antagonising Nokia.

Long waiting in combination with option 3 is virtually equal to option 2, with one tiny difference - people pursuing/hoping for the resurrection of maemo loose their time during that period.
__________________
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
Last edited by momcilo; 2011-08-18 at 21:16.
 
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2011-08-18 , 21:21
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#32
Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post
So, I'm going to hold my tongue here and reply to the "binding" issue again on the mailing list. Thread here
I wrote:

Let's say we have Alice and Bob. Alice is eager to support the idea of a NFP, has experience in various societies/clubs already and knows what to do. Bob, however, has been a developer since the 770 days - he just wants to make sure that whilst there are users of his software they can get updates, and he can have the appropriate services to engage with his users and manage his project.

Alice would be willing to serve on a council transitioning maemo.org to a NFP. Bob would be willing to serve on a council which is taking a migratory approach.

How will they work together? Both of them are volunteers, why should they expect to be bound by a vote [which they don't support]?
Will Alice do all the work? We've had problems getting a sufficient number of candidates in recent/all elections - why will staffing an NFP be any easier, when it actually requires real work?
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2011-08-18 , 21:23
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#33
BTW, I'm not sure whether or not to be flattered - or worried - that the example wording for a particular type of referendum I suggested has, with good tweaks, been adopted by SD69 :-)
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Last edited by Jaffa; 2011-08-18 at 21:38. Reason: Typo
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2011-08-18 , 21:31
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#34
Jaffa for TSG!

wait-- wrong thread.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2011-08-18 , 21:39
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#35
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
Jaffa for TSG!

wait-- wrong thread.
:-) Definitely a different thread. And the tales I could tell you about #jaffa4tsg... over a beer, probably.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2011-08-18 , 21:42
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#36
Originally Posted by Jaffa View Post
:-) Definitely a different thread. And the tales I could tell you about #jaffa4tsg... over a beer, probably.
I'll buy .
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post:
lma is offline lma
2011-08-18 , 22:01
Posts: 2,802 | Thanked: 4,491 times | Joined on Nov 2007
#37
Originally Posted by SD69 View Post
The cutoff for debate (1 month before election) is in the rules - nothing I can do about it.
Another proposal: we could have a referendum on decoupling future referenda from council elections. Then we can deal with the reorg without immediate pressure and rushed decisions, but also without having to wait another 6 months.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lma For This Useful Post:
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2011-08-18 , 22:05
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#38
Originally Posted by lma View Post
Another proposal: we could have a referendum on decoupling future referenda from council elections. Then we can deal with the reorg without immediate pressure and rushed decisions, but also without having to wait another 6 months.
There is no requirement for referenda to be held concurrently with Council elections.

Indeed, all the referenda to date have been about changing the rules before the next election.

EDIT: So when SD69 says:

Originally Posted by SD69 View Post
The cutoff for debate (1 month before election) is in the rules - nothing I can do about it.
I don't know to what he is referring. There are two references to "1 month" in the Council election rules:
  • #9: The election date must be publicised at least 1 month in advance of the election.
  • #12.2: The referendum options must be debated for a minimum of 1 month prior to the referendum.

It is therefore the choice of the Council as to how long the referendum debate and council hustings may be (with restrictions, see also points #1, #2 and #8)

My reading of point 12.2 (and, since I wrote it, I think my reading should count for something - although I'm going off my thoughts now, not what they were 3.5 years ago) is not the same as SD69's. When he says:

Community members should carefully consider the governance referendum at this time. It must be debated for a minimum of one month prior to the election, and therefore the referendum will not be changed after Monday, 22nd August 2011
This is not debating the options. The debate of the options has only started today. There is no proposed referendum yet, and so there's a month to form the question, and its options. I may be wrong, other opinions may vary.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Last edited by Jaffa; 2011-08-18 at 22:13.
 

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
qole's Avatar
qole is offline qole
2011-08-18 , 22:07
Moderator | Posts: 7,109 | Thanked: 8,820 times | Joined on Oct 2007 @ Vancouver, BC, Canada
#39
I'm puzzled why rules that were instituted by "fiat" now require a referendum to be changed? Why did the "founding fathers" have the extra power to create rules without a community vote?
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
 
Jaffa's Avatar
Jaffa is offline Jaffa
2011-08-18 , 22:16
Posts: 2,535 | Thanked: 6,681 times | Joined on Mar 2008 @ UK
#40
Originally Posted by qole View Post
I'm puzzled why rules that were instituted by "fiat" now require a referendum to be changed? Why did the "founding fathers" have the extra power to create rules without a community vote?
There was a community consensus at the time, and there was a community vote to give the initial council a mandate: http://maemo.org/vote/results.php?election_id=1

I don't remember people giving much input on the rules at the time; but this is massively off-topic now. You're on the Council, and you have to live by the rules of the body you volunteered to serve on. If you wanted to change it, you should've held a referendum ;-p
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 4 of 10 « First 23 4 56 Last »

Tags
council, elections

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:49.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top