My understanding is that this decision rightly rests with four people (six techncially but Jaffa and Atilla77 have very properly excused themselves). We've heard from Texrat and General Antilles, if Javispedro and QGil would like to chime in we can clear this up.

I hear people muttering about 'personal opinion' - can we be clear that 'opinion' is not the same as 'feeling'. Sometimes an informed opinion can draw a conclusion that runs counter to one's own wishes or feelings.

Texrat and GA have stated their opinion that it is a proper and appropriate interpretation of the rules to allow Robin to continue to stand. I assume they are basing that on the facts that

* Robin's association with Collabora has been clearly stated in his member and board profiles since he joined.
* Robin's association is with collabora, not directly with Nokia
* There was clearly no intent to deceive

Against that stands the fact that

* Robin didn't read the small print.

Those are reasons for forming an opinion about the rules, rather than the 'feeling' that he's a very good candidate. (Which no one doubts!)

There are several more days of voting - it would be good if this could be cleared up swiftly. I realise the weekend has got in the way.

(BTW, my own 'opinion' is that he should continue to stand - but my opinion doesn't count.)

Javispedro has already answered, but I was hoping to hear from Quim before making any final decision just out of courtesy.

Quim probably has more important things to do, and given the "or" condition of the rule I will go ahead and report that the 3 deciding council members were in unanimous agreement that Robin's (w00t's) candidacy should stand.

There was confusion all around on this and obviously a need for the next council to address the holes. I believe I can safely say that the current members will gladly assist.

Thanks, I've copied & pasted it to the thread on maemo-community which caused this.

Was there really confusion? Apart from the initial confusion of Robin caused by Dave's email (something Dave's apologised for), the process seems spot on. There was a bit of confusion about "nomination" being the wrong noun, but - on reflection - I remember why it was worded like that, and it covers the situation we were in: if a person's nomination is invalid, they can't be a candidate (because their nomination never existed).

Of course, if people can suggest improved language, I'm sure the next Council can consider whether or not it's worth the time and energy to pursue a referendum for a circumstance that has occurred once in five elections.

I wasn't meaning to sound overly dramatic, sorry. I was including questions here as well in that observation (like from SD69). As I've noted previously, I think for the most part the process is okay but could use some improvement.

Thanks for the decision, people, and I'll stick by it. (Not that the current rules give me a way to withdraw anyway, technically).

I'd like to apologise (again) for this, and more importantly for hijacking this thread with it.

Anyway: now that this is out of the way, hopefully we can get back to it.

Shameless plug - an article I wanted to publish before the votes, but sadly have only now gotten around to publish it (the day is still not over, eh ?). In any case...


Maemo Community Council elections - why you should care

Retweet (or bash) at your leisure.

The election has now closed and you can verify your votes (and download the raw ballots):

http://maemo.org/vote/votes.php?election_id=10

A quick grep shows that there were over 440 votes this time. I'm sure dneary will share some more interesting stats once he's correlated the results.

Let the poor boy wake up first! He doesn't live in Sunderland.

What's the history of voter participation in Council elections? Does anyone have data on a) count of eligible voters per election, and b) percentage of voters casting ballots out of all eligible voters per election?