Hey, how many councils do we have over here?

Being one of the founders, I have to say, I disagree with this interpretation.

My intent in the last election cycle was to hold it in such a way that it met with both standards, therefore having one group of people that would hold positions on both Maemo Community Council and the Foundation Council, to ensure a smooth transition. I believe I did that effectively, thus allowing that the election was valid by both rule sets for both bodies.

I made this publicly known, both to current Council, the Founders, and potential Board and Council members. The initial Board was in agreement that the Maemo Community Council would serve as the first official Foundation Council as well, again to ease the transition as it occurred (not requiring another election once hand over from Nokia happened). There's a retrospective note of this in the minutes of the Decemeber 8th meeting.

Two. One is pretty much the same maemo council as it has always been and the other is the new foundation council. The reason for this, which might not have been apparent, is that Hildon Foundation might in the future have an OSS project other than maemo.org. For example, a potential partner or sponsor may not be interested in working with legacy maemo because it wants to be future looking, but it would be interested in doing another project with us. There is more flexibility if this other project and the Foundation in general is not compelled to use the same rules that have been used in maemo.org. Notice that the Foundation Council has the ability to write different rules on membership and elections, and need not do things the same way as at maemo.org. For example, imagine if Jolla had decided to work with us, we could have worked out a different arrangement with them. I get comments from time to time expressing the mistaken notion that Hildon Foundation was founded just to save maemo.org, and it is not limited in that way. So this post should clear that up as well.

This is correct (except for the single word "Foundation"). The Board's minutes say: “The Board votes the newly elected (maemo community) Council in to take responsibility for running, administrating, and managing daily operations of maemo.org.”

So the then existing maemo community council was made the first council in Hildon Foundation and is responsible for maemo.org when it gets handed over from Nokia to Hildon Foundation. For continuity's sake, the council will already be in place for the transition and an election will not be required at that time. Hildon Board voluntarily took the maemo community's decision, adopted it, and has been working with Maemo Community Council for months in preparation for the handover - to everyone's ultimate benefit.

It can also be seen that the functions mentioned in the Board's minutes are not the functions of the Hildon Foundation Council which are stated in the Foundation bylaws to be related to membership and elections. The foundation bylaws also task the Foundation Council with coming up with new membership and election rules, which again is an intentional split with maemo community council.

So HiFo failed for how long? 5 months? 6? To appoint a proper HiFo council? That kinda sounds pretty odd.
Also while HiFo maybe isn't limited to mere maemo.org stewardship for obvious reasons of nobody but God knows the future, it's still damn sure HiFo's primary and most noble duty to take care about maemo (incl maemo6 aka meego) interests, and nobody planned to create a HiFo entity to supervise and reign maemo, decide on maemo's future, or move maemo elsewhere or redefine what maemo means. Any such stuff gets decided by every single member of maemo community, nobody else!
What does that mean? >>...if Jolla had decided to work with us << what kind of work would that be, done by whom (on "our" side, not Jolla's)? And what would HiFo do to maemo assets when such agreement was a reality? >>...a potential partner or sponsor may not be interested in working with legacy maemo because it wants to be future looking, but it would be interested in doing another project with us.<< Who's "us"? What were the benefits for maemo community? Who asked community about their notions regarding that? How's that covered by "HiFo mission"?
/j

By this, I'm assuming you mean working with groups like Jolla. You've worded it poorly enough that community ablaze, screaming about HiFo separating from the community.

True and False. This clause was placed for two reasons:
1> To allow the Council to adjust the voting laws in the event that Karma was no longer available due to technical issues.
2> To allow the Council and the Board to later amend them to include new groups as we merged with new "friends".

With proper input, for example, FC could include other criteria for allowing a linked community (like the ScratchBox community) a way to vote in elections. Maybe by giving them the ability to add the equivalent of Karma points by commits in that realm without requiring it all be filtered and duplicated in the garage.

It was never intended to be a way to cause a split between Hildon Foundation and the community.

Yes and no. The mission of the Hildon "Foundation is to promote and progress the future availability of Maemo® derived or inspired open source software, and related toolkits, for mobile devices." That's from section II of the ByLaws. While it's not limited to strictly the project of keeping maemo.org alive, the key focus is clearly to keep that infrastructure alive. Right now that's maemo.org.

Again, your poor choice of wording is leading others to believe that you are for drifting off and away from maemo.org.

Again, this is a reiteration in the second meeting of things discussed in the first meeting. December 8th was not the first meeting. The first meeting was the cluster-flux of google audio conferencing where the bylaws were voted on an accepted. As a founder, I was in and out of the meeting as technical glitches kept bouncing me, but I do recall this topic.

By which, apparently everyone but you was saying that the Maemo Community Council was in fact also the Foundation Council. If this were not the case it would make little sense, since how would the next election happen? The Foundation Council was to set the rules for the election. How can we have those rules created without a Foundation Council?

And how is that to be done if Maemo Community Council is not also Foundation Council? Just made my point. Thanks.

Wrong. It was, in fact a way to allow the Board Bylaws to be written up without including all the crap about Karma, as the first draft or two did. Would you like copies of the e-mail where we discussed removing this and having it formed by Council later, after the migration? I have them still. There was no discussion about doing this to separate powers between two Councils. The debate at that time was if there was even a NEED for a Council, not if there was a need for two of them...

The primary reason this was done was because we could not predict if Karma was even going to be an option in 6 months to a year, depending on how the transition went. It was not intended as a split from Maemo Community Council. Quite the contrary, it was a tool, giving them the power to update the rules to allow a smooth transition as the community adjusted into it's new and possibly technically limited home.

If it needs to be official then I'll state clearly: I vote, as a Director of the Board, that Maemo Community Council as it stands is in fact dually titled the Foundation Council. This was, in my belief, the intent from the beginning. Being the primary author of the ByLaws I think my belief on intentions would hold quite a bit of merit in this matter.

The adherence to words and semantics instead of on the community's prosperity deeply disappoints me.

Hmm let's see; SD69 was part of the BoD who screwed up communications with Jolla by acting like spoiled brats who had a Community to back them up and SD69 was the one proposing NDAs and such bs that resulted in Jolla giving up on HiFo.

Now he thinks he owns the Community and can decide for everybody else even though he's an unelected BoD. HiFo was made to sign documents for the Community-at-large mainly. If Rob you think that's not the case please resign and gtfo as its you who falls foul of things.

I vote for a re-election to occur so that Rob is kicked out pronto instead of splitting the Community or damaging it with his actions. His words seem like if Jolla were ready to sponsor stuff he would have done everything required to make this Jolla's home instead of maemo.

Those Community members who think SD69 is doing everybody a great deal of service by volunteering get this right; 95% of migration and related work has been done by the Council and things would have been done much faster if not for Rob constantly interfering and using his technical incompetence to block things proposed by Council.

The Council have actually tolerated him and his shenanigans for so long just because they have been wanting things signed and handed over soon instead of being in-limbo as they have been in the past >3months.

Why don't you ban him with your moderator rights?

A reelection don't solve anything. Why not work out the issues instead?

Reelection is a childish way of solving things just becouse you don't handles the issues and probably just got new simular issues and will you solve them with another election?

Point out the issues and work on them. I was elected to lead, not to read so, please. Don't post so long messages.

Dave999,

I'm a moderator to keep the forum tidy NOT to force my opinion on someone or to ban someone just because I'm in disagreement with them. I DON'T mix my moderator privileges with my opinion or thoughts and neither should you.

Why I said re-election is because by right 3 people were elected to form the BoD; all the 3 are no longer in the BoD. SD69 wasn't elected at all and hence it seems very undemocratic for 1 unelected person to be choosing 2 more unelected BoD.

Obviously with his drastic views that were never mentioned when he was being chosen are something I disagree with too hence I vote for a re-election that gives people who voted and are eligible to vote the choice of BoD instead of an unelected BoD.

Exellent, that's a valid and stronger argument than your all in attack with lots of crap reasons. I suggest you ban your previous post and replace ing it with your last post. It shorter too.