No, no, Woody will come and say you're insulting people and take apart your post somehow that is his interpretation that has nothing to do with what you wrote and then answer some convoluted messages.... yes, I am expecting that.

There is a simple answer and that is for the voting to have been done without council members allocating to themselves this much wanted prize, in ANY event of ANY competition unless rigged like this one a judge cannot be allowed to award himself.

Yay! Flamewar about CA results on TMO - I've just won bottle of best Bulgarian wine!

Seriously though - first things first, I would like to congratulate every CA winner. I'm absolutely sure, that doing so is much more important, that other things burning in this thread.
---
Everything what was needed to say was said already - actually, 5-8 times.. I personally thank Woody for taking first turn into rephrasing the same answer over and over, for few ones, who actually are not interested in getting them (instead, like to boost their ego naming themselves "voice of harmattan community" - sic - or whatever).

Normally, I wouldn't reply here - I *hate* to repeat valid points made already by others - but, no one said volunteering for Councilor work is made only of pleasures
---

1. Whole thing about Councilors submitting to CA was mentioned ages ago (much more than month mentioned earlier). In fact, I've, personally, send question to mailing list (I was only a candidate, then), asking about it. I've suggested, that when someone submitting to CA become councilor, she/he should automatically be discarded from program (at this time, i though CA will start before Council election). I was aware, that is kinda unfair, but though it was most transparent solution.

To my surprise, feedback from Community was 100% positive - some suggested, that councilors should get device automatically, others pointed out, that for clearness sake, Councilors submitting shouldn't vote on themselves.

Later, same issue was brought on TMO. AFAIK, only one person expressed negative view on this (geneven). Amongst positive replies, lma pointed out, that, instead of discarding submitting Councilors from voting at all, they should only *not* be allowed to vote on themselves. As said, we've discussed it during next Council meeting (open for everyone), and decided to go this way.

Draft for CA rules was posted on Summer Device program thread and mailinglist, then, after official start of CA program, on maemo.org "News", on TMO, on mailing list, and announced on IRC.

CA was discussed on IRC - with much heat - but all concerns were about "spamming" mailing list with submissions.

From now on, CA program lasted for 3 weeks, then, council decided awards. Up to this point, there was no single protest (except for mentioned one-liner form geneven @ TMO, which, in fact, wasn't proposing anything instead).

Links for all mentioned things were provided already in this thread, by others. No, I'm not going to re-collect them again for lazy ones!
---

Honestly, I could end comment about "ruffled feathers" here, as simply stating facts is more than enough for any intelligent/reasonable person, that mean well (tm) , at the same time, showing, how pathetic this whole whining is.

Still, what strikes me is that - for already 19 pages of this thread - no one said single line about why particular winner amongst councilors shouldn't receive device. Whole point - of some people having poor view on what transparency is - is about receiving devices by Councilors at all.

I understand, that most "average" people living in democracy, think that automatically dismissing Councilors from CA would be good thing (BTW, it explains, why our democracy is in such miserable shape... but that's different topic). Heck, I must admit, that even I was biased by that, to the point where I suggested hurting people volunteering by hard work for Community, by "automatically" banishing them from CA (and "them" include myself).

But, response was in meritocratic, wise way - it's a part of why I love this Community. People have spoken, that Councilors - being unpaid, (again) volunteers working for Community, shouldn't be punished for that.

While selecting winners, we we're granting devices by meritocratic means. We didn't cared if someone is Councilor, was Councilor (in fact, some former Councilors received device, some not), can be Councilor, got his skin white, black, green or magenta. Past contributions for Community was only one criteria, as stated in CA rules *plentora* of times.
---

Now, iI'm gonna sound "little" harsh, probably. Doesn't like results? Fine, if You can't act civil and just congratulate winners, go and write your complains to /dev/null. There was more than enough time for participating in CA rules creation, and "making it better than those bastards on Council". If You don't invest Your time into knowing what's going on in the Community, it's *your* problem. We *must* know that, and no one pay us for it. If You think You can do better, You're welcome to run for Council in ~5 months time. If You don't feel need to be informed in time, but You like to complain in [b]small[/b[, but loud group of negatrons - well, ask vi_ via PM form. I'm sure, that he will volunteer to answer, where You can put Your complains and how to smoke it.

BTW, frankly, I don't know how much of "special" care was needed, to actually achieve being *not* informed about CA, We've used every existing Maemo channel. Some even criticized us for fanatically sticking to transparency and using mailing list for submissions, but I think, that now wisdom in it is perfectly clear. Using ML, everything is logged, unchangeable, etc. I can only imagine amount of sh|tstorm here, if we would - for example - use mail to council@maemo.org as submission form

/Estel

Ps.

geneven. Your suggestion that Nokia is wanting to buy us make me really LOL. Well, do You really, really think, that anyone from Nokia is going to ever start *discussing* with us, upon deciding to cut maemo.org fundings? Best thing we can rely on, is warning from Qgil - and only because he is nice guy, also dedicated for Maemo. Come back on earth, mate.

Arie? Who is Arie? Whoever he is, I don't think Mer/Harmattan branch of our community will miss him ;-)

But of course it isn't .

I would recommend you to read the CA rules, then maybe you will finally understand those devices are NOT DEVELOPMENT KITS. And are not given to be used in any other way, but the way their owner wants.

Maybe I will give mine to vi_, so he will have more money to spend on his option 2. Or not, it is possible I will fell so much love in love with Harmattan, that I will stop any development on Fremantle and will code only for Maemo6. But it depends on me.

On the other hand now you're not using your N9, I am wondering why are you so concerned about future applications that won't be written because freemangordon is given N950 as an award.

Guys, I really beg you to stop that. It is a shame.

In all fairness, the awards were supposed to recognize past contributions, not encourage new ones. This is as opposed to the original 'Community Device Program', which was intended specifically as a vehicle for development of new Harmattan apps.

However, a number of the recipients of these awards had made no substantial contributions to be recognized, and won't be making any substantial contributions now. Either way, that isn't right. The issue at hand, though, is the severe conflict of interest demonstrated by the fact that 100% of the councilors that participated so happened to win. That makes the council look dishonest, maemo.org look dishonest, and Nokia look ignorant.

Well, see here:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...&postcount=193

All Your concerns were answered in this very post, in the same page.

What is sad, that You're complaining, while You've also been submitter for CA = You've been aware of rules and other submissions for sure. Of course, You haven't complained then - but, when You're not amongst winners, sudden of nothing, You "see" how wrong rules were

/Estel

It's not the fact that I didn't win that irritates me - it's the fact that both I and numerous others who have made a difference never even had the opportunity. I hesitated to weigh in on this whole debate precisely because of what you mentioned, but this isn't about the phone.

Writing lots of bold text doesn't excuse what happened.

I'm sorry to say but democracy is not working because of abuse of power and corruption, and your example is opposite. And right been council is voluntary, and it just proves that that no one forced anyone and if you want to do it, do till the end. All your answers have a lot of interedting points and strong words, but they are selective and they are not bringing any info on most points. And i'll tell you again, if i'm part of community that participate in development and contributing in one area, but do not check all maillist and tmo posts, it doesnt mean it's my fault. Or you choose the criteria of community involvement, or we need council for council to vheck them? I dont understand how is that most people just didn't thought it would be even possible so they didnt check all participates and all the threads is related to how it's too late. I know some of people just do not raise their voices, but there are more than enuf old members and who contributed, who didn't agree with you, and as you serve for community and elected for us, do right thing. It would be ok if maybe 1 or 2, but 100% election on win list from council is roten!!!

this was from ivgalvez:
Regarding the voting process, I can say that at first round only 16 people were selected as winners and that 2 of 4 Councillors applying didn't enter that list. Even more, it was needed to go to final round of voting and agreement to include the fourth candidate into the winners list.

Estel,
If the procedure needed to go to the final round of voting and the last councillor was added to the winners list "reluctantly" what do you need guys like itsnotabigtruck and e-yes to do to have displaced them instead?

I thought the 2 chaps in question already have devices to develop on?

You are aware that:

1. The only reason the N950 was called a 'dev kit' was so they could punt a load of obsolete old hardware to drum up support for the up and coming N9.

2. Now the N9 has arrived and is available in large quantities the N950 is nothing more that a curiosity from a bygone era.

3. To develop for the N9, for Harmattan the best device is an N9.

4. A developer can request a development device from Nokia at any time.