a referendum has to get held according to the very rules we're discussing here. According to those rules this discussion period is 4 weeks.

Do you suggest we change this particular rule to read "4 days" instead of "4 weeks"? This thread is the exactly right place to do so ;-P (tongue in cheek)

/j

Because it is added. The change of the rules is all that is needed. (And it can be clear from the changes in the rules - i.e. Removal of references to Nokia - that the transformation is part of the rule change.)

But then we thought why don't we make it more obvious what is the spirit of those changes in the question? and thus the added part.

The change was mainly because until we get the legal paperwork in place, Hildon Foundation can't use the Maemo name. Once we get that, we could file a DBA and/or change the ByLaws to adapt whatever name we want.

In a way, this rule set does exactly that. The existing ByLaws allow for Council to self-govern to a great extent, and make it's own rules. The only "set in stone" rules are the time-frames and number of nominee issues, which are part of the ByLaws. To change ByLaws, it takes a vote of both Council and Board (but not a community referendum). The Council may (at it's option) call a referendum and use that to guide it's vote.

As for this referendum, the way it's phrased would bind future Council to call a referendum and vote accordingly to change the voting rules. This would effectively mean to change them it would require a vote of Board and Council (required by ByLaws), and a referendum (required by these rules) to pull off a change.

Realistically, if a referendum is passed/rejected by the community, I don't see Council or Board voting against those wishes, since both are here to serve that community.

...tl;dr...

Too Lazy; Don't caRe about the community? Sounds about right.

There are not 3000 new words. The first set is a copy of the rules used for all past Maemo Community Council elections. The second set shows where the changes are made by marking them in bold.

This is really not that complex. It's changing/adding about 30 words.

Woody: I removed my post as I couldn't get my thoughts across (sorry, bit on the edge with Q1 finishing and lots of projects piling up), but my '3000 words' were not about the few bolded words 3/5 change takes to make into effect, more about this 'transforms' part that in actuality results in all bylaws/rules geting LIVE and noone knows what is lost, all rules governing it (plus all rules about MCC that remain - do any remain? Or did you rewrite all rules that mention MCC to now point to HFC? I do believe while the rules about elections might be the bare basics, if you tell us changing MCC to HFC makes all other invalid I will have to vote NO in this referendum). Without a full writeup what this referendum is about and what changes we are to expect, I cannot honestly vote AYE. 4 weeks seems not that long as with every post it turns out more and more is at stake

edit: To be clear, quote from your recent post:

The existing ByLaws allow for Council to self-govern to a great extent, and make it's own rules.

Why referendum then? Will yes in that referendum make future referendums just an optional thing unlike today, cause it seems so (you would make your own rules right now, somehow calling it to make your ruling lawful tells me referendums should never be optional and always make law sorry for poor legalese). It just makes it more and more cloudy/shady, sorry

Another quote:

Realistically, if a referendum is passed/rejected by the community, I don't see Council or Board voting against those wishes, since both are here to serve that community.

Realistically, seeing how much power kicks into minds of those wielding it, why not? We have rules now that make referendum mandatory, now you propose the community to give up its power and trust few guys who will not be corrupted by power (should I point you to all politics drama threads? I don't trust you guys with that power. Serving community is great when being elected, later on n950s and whatnot and everyone is a sicko. Referendum should remain THE thing to kick all gollums without counting on gollum/you/estel/sd69/joerg/pali/anyone else to have to aye that and relinquish power, community says=god says, no exceptions, maybe for atheists, but you get the drift)

This referendum is not about "transformation". It's about aligning the rules so that the titles are effectively interchangeable. It allows Council to smoothly transition from working with Nokia to working with the Hildon Foundation. There is nothing lost in doing this.

All other rules? What other rules? There are no other rules that I'm aware of for Maemo Community Council. Everything besides the election rules, from when to hold meetings to how to interact with the community, is based on tradition and has changed over time.

For example, when I became Council I pushed to have weekly public meetings on IRC. Before that they were held semi-randomly, sometimes announced on the mailing list, sometimes on TMO, sometimes not at all.

Even if there are other rules, the ByLaws don't impose any new rules to Council. It allows it to self-govern. So this effectively transfers all of Councils current rules into it's own governing rules, including keeping all the things around referendums.

Did you read my reply to Joerg_rw?

This referendum is needed to fix problems with the existing rules. This includes the 3/5 issue, and the fact that the existing rules call out for a Nokia rep to make choices in special circumstances. The only thing this referendum is changing is that specific language.

To be clear: Nothing is changing about when a referendum is required and when it's not.

You have rules for Maemo Community Council that make a referendum mandatory only for changes to rules on elections and referendums. That is the only time referendums have ever been mandatory. The changes in this referendum DO NOT CHANGE THOSE REQUIREMENTS AT ALL. In fact, it solidifies that requirement, so that as Council transitions from working with Nokia to working with HiFo, those remain in effect.

The existing ByLaws do NOT require a referendum for anything. Those ByLaws are already in effect. By keeping that language while aligning the other rules to match those in the ByLaws, Council is effectively reaffirming it's own governing rules (which the ByLaws say it can do) that referendums are required to change election laws for Council.

There is no "power" in any of this. You've seen what happens when someone tries to "take power" in this community. They tend to get booted pretty quick.

How do we change it? Some with access just change it(skunk work) or do we have to vote about it?

For those too busy to read the rest, this is a summary of what a vote on this referendum means.

You vote YES on the referendum:
Rules for MCC change to fix the 3/5 rule, and replace a Nokia rep with the HiFo Board. PERIOD.

Side effect (if YES vote wins):
Transition from working with Nokia to working with HiFo is simple. MCC can effectively be called both MCC and HFC, since they then are effectively identical when it comes to the rule sets they need to follow. Election criteria for both are identical, so one election covers both "titles". If desired, the ByLaws can be changed to change the name so it's clearly all the same thing.

You vote NO on the referendum:
The rules for MCC do not change. If 3 or 5 candidates stand,because of existing MCC rules, all will effectively be APPOINTED to the position of Council. Also, if any special exception occurs, or there are less than 3 candidates, we need to call Nokia and ask if they'll appoint a community rep to resolve it. If Nokia refuses, then what? If they do, and the rep says "You people are nuts... Shut it all down.", then what?

Side effect (if NO vote wins):
There will be a conflict in the rules, which could cause confusion (see last election). By the ByLaws, any Council "election" with 3/5 candidates would be considered invalid for the HFC title. At that point a special Board vote and/or a separate election following the ByLaw rules would be needed to give the title of HFC to some or all of the group "elected" by MCC rules.