Active Topics
-
Firefox with Leste (10)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 3 days, 18 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2011-08-18
, 21:21
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#32
|
Originally Posted by Jaffa
I wrote:
So, I'm going to hold my tongue here and reply to the "binding" issue again on the mailing list. Thread here
Let's say we have Alice and Bob. Alice is eager to support the idea of a NFP, has experience in various societies/clubs already and knows what to do. Bob, however, has been a developer since the 770 days - he just wants to make sure that whilst there are users of his software they can get updates, and he can have the appropriate services to engage with his users and manage his project.
Alice would be willing to serve on a council transitioning maemo.org to a NFP. Bob would be willing to serve on a council which is taking a migratory approach.
How will they work together? Both of them are volunteers, why should they expect to be bound by a vote [which they don't support]?
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-08-18
, 21:23
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#33
|
BTW, I'm not sure whether or not to be flattered - or worried - that the example wording for a particular type of referendum I suggested has, with good tweaks, been adopted by SD69 :-)
Last edited by Jaffa; 2011-08-18 at 21:38. Reason: Typo
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Last edited by Jaffa; 2011-08-18 at 21:38. Reason: Typo
| The Following User Says Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-08-18
, 21:31
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#34
|
Jaffa for TSG!
wait-- wrong thread.
wait-- wrong thread.
__________________
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
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-08-18
, 21:39
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#35
|
Originally Posted by Texrat
:-) Definitely a different thread. And the tales I could tell you about #jaffa4tsg... over a beer, probably.
Jaffa for TSG!
wait-- wrong thread.
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
|
|
2011-08-18
, 21:42
|
|
Posts: 11,700 |
Thanked: 10,045 times |
Joined on Jun 2006
@ North Texas, USA
|
#36
|
Originally Posted by Jaffa
I'll buy .
:-) Definitely a different thread. And the tales I could tell you about #jaffa4tsg... over a beer, probably.
__________________
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
| The Following User Says Thank You to Texrat For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2011-08-18
, 22:01
|
|
Posts: 2,802 |
Thanked: 4,491 times |
Joined on Nov 2007
|
#37
|
Originally Posted by SD69
Another proposal: we could have a referendum on decoupling future referenda from council elections. Then we can deal with the reorg without immediate pressure and rushed decisions, but also without having to wait another 6 months.
The cutoff for debate (1 month before election) is in the rules - nothing I can do about it.
|
|
2011-08-18
, 22:05
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#38
|
Originally Posted by lma
There is no requirement for referenda to be held concurrently with Council elections.
Another proposal: we could have a referendum on decoupling future referenda from council elections. Then we can deal with the reorg without immediate pressure and rushed decisions, but also without having to wait another 6 months.
Indeed, all the referenda to date have been about changing the rules before the next election.
EDIT: So when SD69 says:
Originally Posted by SD69
I don't know to what he is referring. There are two references to "1 month" in the Council election rules:
The cutoff for debate (1 month before election) is in the rules - nothing I can do about it.
- #9: The election date must be publicised at least 1 month in advance of the election.
- #12.2: The referendum options must be debated for a minimum of 1 month prior to the referendum.
It is therefore the choice of the Council as to how long the referendum debate and council hustings may be (with restrictions, see also points #1, #2 and #8)
My reading of point 12.2 (and, since I wrote it, I think my reading should count for something - although I'm going off my thoughts now, not what they were 3.5 years ago) is not the same as SD69's. When he says:
Community members should carefully consider the governance referendum at this time. It must be debated for a minimum of one month prior to the election, and therefore the referendum will not be changed after Monday, 22nd August 2011
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Last edited by Jaffa; 2011-08-18 at 22:13.
| The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2011-08-18
, 22:07
|
|
Moderator |
Posts: 7,109 |
Thanked: 8,820 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
@ Vancouver, BC, Canada
|
#39
|
I'm puzzled why rules that were instituted by "fiat" now require a referendum to be changed? Why did the "founding fathers" have the extra power to create rules without a community vote?
__________________
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
qole.org --- twitter --- Easy Debian wiki page
Please don't send me a private message, post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you all for your donations!
|
|
2011-08-18
, 22:16
|
|
Posts: 2,535 |
Thanked: 6,681 times |
Joined on Mar 2008
@ UK
|
#40
|
Originally Posted by qole
There was a community consensus at the time, and there was a community vote to give the initial council a mandate: http://maemo.org/vote/results.php?election_id=1
I'm puzzled why rules that were instituted by "fiat" now require a referendum to be changed? Why did the "founding fathers" have the extra power to create rules without a community vote?
I don't remember people giving much input on the rules at the time; but this is massively off-topic now. You're on the Council, and you have to live by the rules of the body you volunteered to serve on. If you wanted to change it, you should've held a referendum ;-p
__________________
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew@bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Jaffa For This Useful Post: | ||
I don't mind the third option as long as the delay is not too great (4-6 months) instead of end of 2012.
In the case of short period, it is wise, since it allows for graceful recovery without antagonising Nokia.
Long waiting in combination with option 3 is virtually equal to option 2, with one tiny difference - people pursuing/hoping for the resurrection of maemo loose their time during that period.
http://gpl-violations.org/faq/violation-faq.html
Last edited by momcilo; 2011-08-18 at 21:16.