Just a personal opinion - there is too much "confidential" in this around-FOSS (sic!) project, for my taste.

Can't stop myself from quoting someone, (who, fortunately, haven't passed it into Board, due to being filtered out by Community, during election) - "In effort to increase transparency..."

Not attacking. Don't want to start any argue. It's just that all this "top secret" **** sounds a little pathetic/inappropriate for Foundation.

/Estel

your oblique allusions are just proof of how juvenile and immature you are
Woody clearly said that due to his professional obligations in the coming months he would only have wanted to be member of the HFB if there were enough other members and if he could have helped out sparingly. when it became clear the directorate would have three members he...

it's is only because i wasn't logged in that i noticed your posts.
once everybody has on ignore, i certainly won't bother anymore

Congratulations to everyone elected to the Foundation board of directors. I'm fairly new to this community, so this may not mean much, but I support your efforts and trust you all will do a great job.

Now get to work!

Technically, yes. Texrat's "announcement" happened after the close of the election. But in reality, none of that really matters.
__________________________________________________

As SD69 notes, the incorporators are not bound by anything other then the articles of incorporation of the state, and the personal conviction to get this organization off the ground in a way that is beneficial to the community.

The bylaws have yet to be put in place. For that to happen, the incorporators must meet with the potential Directors, seat them, and the Directors must then approve the bylaws and any other actions or binding agreements established by the incorporators.

Even if the current bylaws were in place, there has been explicit language in them to handle this exact scenario for a couple versions. They also explicitly states such declines must be in writing to the current Board, which was not done in this case.

As the board has not even been seated yet, the incorporators could choose to seat or not set any candidate if they wished. By law, the incorporators could appoint a dozen people if they liked, and that Board could make up whatever rules they wanted.

You see, the incorporators are not legally bound to hold an election. It was only done in this way because it was agreed to early on that a Maemo style election would ease the community's transition by using a familiar process. The path of elections and community review of bylaws was taken so that the community could be better served by the new corporation. This is why choosing the initial Board and solidifying the bylaws was so important, and why I pushed for it so hard.

This could have been monarchy by fiat. Current Council could have simply appointed themselves, made their own rules. Incorporation laws allow for are designed for just such a dictatorial setup. But that would not have been serving to (nor likely accepted by) the community. We're an odd duck in the corporate world, where self-appointing Boards without term limits are the norm.

In the end, the bylaws create the framework within which the Board must act. The initial Board must also be trustworthy enough to enact self-limiting regulations for the communities sake, and work on behalf of the community in good will.

I think we have that now. There are 3 potential appointments based on this, all of whom I think are exceptional. The bylaws look exceptionally solid, and after legal review should be enough to keep them stable and going for some time. Not bad for a few months work, along with everything else going on, if I say so myself.

This is not entirely true. It *would* be, as any party was free to "continue Maemo's spirit", but this exact case is different, due to *one* reason:
Council, handling transition, was agreed to get certain assets from Nokia. This make it "special" and semi-official case of transition, as (hypothetical) other, random groups,w anting to setup Foundation(s) wouldn't be given such assets.

This bonds transition to be done with respect to current statute, requiring referendum for such major changes, IMO. It means, that it wasn't purely "good will" of Council - respecting current statute require referendum to change it (statute), which includes total reorganization.
---

Of course, everything I've written above could be wrong in reality, considering fact, that - in current state - Nokia wouldn't care much, where they're giving access to Community's "belongings", and if that party respect statute, or not. But, it's rather matter of standard weakness in Nokia, and abusing such lack fo responsibility (of Nokians) would result in Council's action being perceived as hostile takeover, probably.
---

No matter of different way of interpreting what Council was "bound" to do or not, I understand what you mean and your reasoning - frankly - no much reason to argue here, as it doesn't change a single thing. All after all, no Foundation can exist (successfully) without support from interested people, so it's obvious, that no one wanted it to look like hostile takeover.
---

BTW - when we can expect "migration" of managing important tasks, from current Council's members, to new Board? I mean things like talking with Nemein, coordinating OBS, migration of assets, etc. Up to now, it was task of Council (lets leave alone personal opinions about how effectively Council performed those duties) - is there any proposed timeline, when Board will take it over?

/Estel

Important content:
Council nominations close thus Sunday! Get your nominations in if you want to run for Council.


Nokia has never put a requirement about elections or anything else on whom they would consider for transitioning right to. So, yes, what I said is entirely true, which you go on to acknowledge later in your ramble.

Not all tasks will leave the Council. Council still has an important role to play, even as the transitions occur.

As for items that will transition to the Board, we have been trying to schedule a time to get everyone in the same "room" to get things started, but have not gotten feedback from all parties. The hope is to do this very soon.

For my part, I've been somewhat out of the loop the past week recovering from influenza and pneumonia, likely brought on by a schedule of heavy work and travel in the weeks before. For that reason I'm not 100% sure where everything is right now. (Some things have changed, and I know that, but I don't know details.)

It's also why I've not been commenting on the continuing stream of social drama and backhanded remarks in general here or on the mailing list. Frankly I've been more concerned with my own health, job, and life right now than what some time-waste half way around the globe thinks everyone else should have done or should be concerned about, without any factual backing...

I wasn't even aware of community reps. This is the first I've even noticed these "council" links.

Are you entirely sure, that such hostile and offensive part was required in your post? While I know you're accustomed to doing so, I'm sure that there is no real point of conflict in our interpretations of election - after all, it doesn't change anything, and results are same.

If you feel better by stating that Council did a "favor" by running election for Board - instead of "performing duty", as I interpret it - it's fine, no need for trying to enforce this view of things on others, by using words like "ramble".

I'm sure, that we can have different opinions on things, without embarrassing others, by usage of such disrespecting language. I also think, that you should be already aware of it, after almost half of a year of being Councilor, and little less of being it's chair. And before you use it as argument - no, what others do/did in the past/will be doing, isn't good excuse for your own actions.

Thanks in advance, for caring more about words that you use in future.

/Estel

Although I have already mentioned it in the Coucil election thread, I'd like to also comment here:

Considering that we have now enough candidates for Council and that I have already been elected for Board, I suggest not to vote for me, but for any of the other candidates. This way we could have completely separate bodies for both Council and Board.

Isn't revoking own candidacy for Council a more feasible/sane way of doing it? This whole "please don't vote for me" thing is kinda silly, especially, that it isn't first time we see it, during current "batch" of elections.

Just suggestin'

/Estel