Active Topics
-
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (3)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 4 hrs, 43 mins ago -
The N900 is now 15 years old! (6)
to Nokia N900 by Macros - 1 day, 8 hrs ago -
F(x)tec Pro1x (QWERTY) for sale (0)
to Buy & Sell by aln00000 - 1 day, 21 hrs ago -
n770 youtube video (0)
to General by nmdv - 5 days, 20 hrs ago - more...
| The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to thedead1440 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2012-10-17
, 10:53
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 6,215 |
Thanked: 6,400 times |
Joined on Nov 2011
|
#102
|
Dear Council,
Clarifications required:
This means that if there are 4 candidates and 1 withdraws, then an extension of the nomination period has to be granted as 3 is the minimum number of seats that need to be finalised right with a minimum of 4 candidates standing?
So let's say after nomination period is extended, 1 candidate nominates him/herself and then we have 4 candidates. If any candidate withdraws within 3 days of the end of the extended nomination period, then what? Another extension?
Can we have a clause here that after 1 extension is granted, there will be no further extensions and the previous BoD carries on for another 3 months? Elections are hence held after 3 months?
So if the late-withdrawal is considered as having consented not to take a position in the BoD and he is one of the 3 to have been elected then new elections are called? Can we instead simply state that the candidate who lost out to this late-withdrawal is instead given a seat in the BoD?
P.S. Everything else seems fine IMO
Last edited by thedead1440; 2012-10-17 at 10:58.
Clarifications required:
Nominees may withdraw their nomination up to three (3) days after the end of the nomination period.
Withdraws shall be considered retro-active, and shall trigger any appropriate actions needed to
continue the election cycle, including extension of the nomination period or changes to the number of
seats to be chosen during an election.
This means that if there are 4 candidates and 1 withdraws, then an extension of the nomination period has to be granted as 3 is the minimum number of seats that need to be finalised right with a minimum of 4 candidates standing?
So let's say after nomination period is extended, 1 candidate nominates him/herself and then we have 4 candidates. If any candidate withdraws within 3 days of the end of the extended nomination period, then what? Another extension?
Can we have a clause here that after 1 extension is granted, there will be no further extensions and the previous BoD carries on for another 3 months? Elections are hence held after 3 months?
Withdraws done after three (3) days past the end of the
nomination period shall be considered invalid, and elections will continue with the listed nominee on
the ballot. In the event that a late-withdrawing nominee is elected, the withdraw shall be treated as
written consent of the Director to immediately and voluntarily vacate the position.
P.S. Everything else seems fine IMO
Last edited by thedead1440; 2012-10-17 at 10:58.
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thedead1440 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-10-17
, 11:27
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 5,320 |
Thanked: 4,464 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#103
|
I want to add a whole bunch of feedback, hopefully within the next 48hr, also some stuff that's related but perhaps slightly off-topic, I hope I'm not too late!
| The Following User Says Thank You to jalyst For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2012-10-17
, 21:05
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#104
|
Originally Posted by thedead1440
Hmmm.. The concept was that the nomination period is extended once by at least one week (to at least 21 days, where it was at least 14 before that). This made me catch a few mistakes actually. How about this:
This means that if there are 4 candidates and 1 withdraws
If at any time fewer than four (4) nominees remain after the nomination period for either the Foundation Council or the Board of Directors, the nomination period for that body shall be extended to at least twenty one (21) days, or to at least seven (7) days longer than the initial nomination period, and a second announcement of election shall be made, noting the extension of the nomination period. If no additional nominations are received within the extended nomination period, or further extension would cause the election cycle to exceed sixty (60) days, the Board shall decide the appropriate action at that time, including but not limited to appointment, installment, or rejection of some or all of the nominees or existing Directors to the respective body.
The election cycle shall consist of at least fourteen (14) days for nominations, at least seven days (7) for nominee discussion and reflection, and at least seven (7) days for electorate members to vote, in that order. The election cycle shall not exceed thirty (30) days, except for in the case of mandatory nomination extension in which case the election cycle shall not exceed sixty (60) days.
After the initial extension, if nominations are not received the appropriate action is determined by the current leadership of the respective body. If received and withdrawn, it could in fact trigger another extension if the first was under 30 days, but only to a max of 4 weeks total.
Originally Posted by thedead1440
I don't think there's a need to explicitly set out exact verbiage for this in the bylaws as to what exactly must happen when the election cycle time ends without enough candidates (even after extension). Things may change over time, so allowing the existing Board to decide seems the reasonable solution.
Can we have a clause here that after 1 extension is granted, there will be no further extensions and the previous BoD carries on for another 3 months? Elections are hence held after 3 months?
Originally Posted by thedead1440
As it's currently written, yes.
So if the late-withdrawal is considered as having consented not to take a position in the BoD and he is one of the 3 to have been elected then new elections are called?
Originally Posted by thedead1440
I (and others) think that's not the best way to go. What's to say the next candidate still wants the position? What if it was a 4 person election, and the 4th runner was not desired by most of the community?
Can we instead simply state that the candidate who lost out to this late-withdrawal is instead given a seat in the BoD?
Allowing the existing two to continue on while simply restarting the process again seems reasonable. Yes, it's a short term (three weeks to at the most two months), but I'd rather a short term than to mandate someone into place for a year that may be undesirable.
One last option: We may change the wording in the forced election cycle clause to read something like this:
If at any point more than one Director is expelled during a single term, or fewer than three (3) Director positions are occupied (not vacant or expulsed) for a period exceeding seven (7) days, a new election cycle shall be required to be announced and will commence immediatelyupon the triggering vacancy or expulsion.
Thoughts?
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-10-17
, 21:21
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#105
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
Grandma (Maemo) has gotten an eviction notice. We have 3 months to decide where she goes and who cares for her, or she's out on the street. And it will take at least a month to move all her stuff out, maybe longer with the few friends we have to help. Will there be squabbling in the family over who should care for her, and where she should live? Sure. Does that mean we should just let her go homeless?
I don't see any point to the Foundation if this is where we are as a "community"
Yes, there is infighting at times. Yes, there are disagreements at times. No community is without disagreement. But to suggest that there's no point to trying to continue because of a couple squabbles is like letting grandma become a hobo because Aunt June doesn't like the way the doilies are being divided up.
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
Last edited by woody14619; 2012-10-17 at 21:23.
| The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2012-10-17
, 21:30
|
|
Posts: 4,118 |
Thanked: 8,901 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
@ Ruhrgebiet, Germany
|
#106
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
Sounds reasonable.
Thoughts?
And yes, dont let her get homeless.
But I have seen so less attention/reaction on this thread, except a few fellow members ...
__________________
SIM-Switcher, automated SIM switching with a Double (Dual) SIM adapter
--
Thank you all for voting me into the Community Council 2014-2016!
Please consider your membership / supporting Maemo e.V. and help to spread this by following/copying this link to your TMO signature:
[MC eV] Maemo Community eV membership application, http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=94257
editsignature, http://talk.maemo.org/profile.php?do=editsignature
SIM-Switcher, automated SIM switching with a Double (Dual) SIM adapter
--
Thank you all for voting me into the Community Council 2014-2016!
Please consider your membership / supporting Maemo e.V. and help to spread this by following/copying this link to your TMO signature:
[MC eV] Maemo Community eV membership application, http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=94257
editsignature, http://talk.maemo.org/profile.php?do=editsignature
| The Following User Says Thank You to peterleinchen For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2012-10-17
, 21:56
|
|
Posts: 1,625 |
Thanked: 998 times |
Joined on Aug 2010
|
#107
|
Originally Posted by peterleinchen
don't equal lack of (re-)action to lack of interest.
Sounds reasonable.
And yes, dont let her get homeless.
But I have seen so less attention/reaction on this thread, except a few fellow members ...
a lot of N9(00)s owner browse here, hoping (or even assuming?) that... Maemo.org will pull if off.
did you ever (except in some of my posts >¦-) see a NOKIA logo on this site? readers always thought of Maemo.org as an independent entity.
NOKIA pulling out?
so?
so, yes, ppl care, they just don't realize how much they (should) care
__________________
information is a necessary though no sufficient condition to rationality...
information is a necessary though no sufficient condition to rationality...
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to misterc For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2012-10-17
, 23:10
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#109
|
Ok, Revision 7... Just about 24 hours before the election for Board ends.
Please check and review. To see deltas from previous versions, see the respective pdf links in those posts further back in this thread.
Rev 5 to 6
Rev 4 to 5
Rev 3 to 4
We've come a long way from the initial version, but I think it's pretty solid at this point.
Please check and review. To see deltas from previous versions, see the respective pdf links in those posts further back in this thread.
Rev 5 to 6
Rev 4 to 5
Rev 3 to 4
We've come a long way from the initial version, but I think it's pretty solid at this point.
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
 |
|
2012-10-18
, 03:18
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#110
|
Originally Posted by woody14619
I've been here a long, long time now. Helped build the thing. We've had plenty of squabbles. But nothing like the current discouraging tenor and low level of community involvement.
Grandma (Maemo) has gotten an eviction notice. We have 3 months to decide where she goes and who cares for her, or she's out on the street. And it will take at least a month to move all her stuff out, maybe longer with the few friends we have to help. Will there be squabbling in the family over who should care for her, and where she should live? Sure. Does that mean we should just let her go homeless?
Yes, there is infighting at times. Yes, there are disagreements at times. No community is without disagreement. But to suggest that there's no point to trying to continue because of a couple squabbles is like letting grandma become a hobo because Aunt June doesn't like the way the doilies are being divided up.
And I already knew the details all too well. Maybe I'm just venting pent up anxiety. I definitely don't want Maemo to evaporate.
EDIT: at this point I believe the best solution for assets would be to see if they could be taken over by Jolla.
EDIT 2: some of you are taking that last line WAY too far.
I'm frustrated by the infighting. I'm now concerned it's going to scuttle any chance of a Maemo survival solution. So I offered up Jolla as a potential savior.
Obviously I could have chosen my words better. But for people to attack me outright instead of taking my history here into consideration is beyond belief.
I have always worked in the best interests of the Maemo community. How quickly some forget.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net
Last edited by Texrat; 2012-10-19 at 04:22.
 |
| Tags |
| best wishes, council, whats going on? |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:44.
They both are doing for the greater good so its not a split as a "community" but simply the issue of "Doing things the right way vs. doing the right thing" - © SD69
Both of them are right after all...
Maybe SD69 was disclosing that as it was sent to more than just him? As he mentions woody sent it to a few people so seeing the s*itstorms created here for every minor thing he wants to avoid being involved in it in the future by being seen as related to woody's intentions via association?
Oh and that email doesn't smudge woody's character IMO; it just shows the lengths to which current Council are prepared to go to save the Community's future...
Anyway its water under the bridge...
Last edited by thedead1440; 2012-10-17 at 06:03.