There been no changes whatsoever to the channel's flags, regardless of you suspectng them to be incorrect and later on you obviously found out that they work nonetheless for you. And "policy" is meant to refer to something completely different than channel flags, it's the "nettiquette" which I told you like every other member of techstaff about, which is about "24/7 logged in to admin channel". I am not calling you names.
admin channel access is controlled via invite-exempt list (/mode -I), in the very beginning it been based on access-list (/msg chanserv help access). You been on both lists from the time you first got invited into admin channel and showed up there. When you don't authenticate to nickserv, you can't get identified by neither of both lists and access cannot get granted. When your client tries to autojoin protected channels on client startup, before you authenrticated, then you'll run into trouble. Nothing a chanop could do about that, call that "refuse to fix" if you want.

I noted that Nokia claimed we were doing such, and was confused on how that could happen, as I knew we did not have domain control for maemo.org at that point, yet alone nokia.com.

For the record: Just being Board doesn't make one all-knowing. It's a good thing that Board members ask questions when they don't know answers to things, IMHO. As I did not fully understand what was happening, I turned to you, as a member of TechStaff, to find an explanation. If only the reverse were true, things would be very different now.

And yes, this was one situation where things were resolved rather quickly. Though it wasn't instant by any means. I recall a good amount of consternation and haggling before finding agreement on the needed action(s). I also recall a rather nasty back-lash in TMO the day after, being called out as "agreeing to be Nokia's watchdog", and "signing away rights we don't need to", because "everything, including images, were FOSS". Do you recall that?

The above is correct.

My understanding is that citizenship is needed only to be President, or Vice-Chair. GA members can be non-EU citizens, can they not? I honestly don't know... I'm asking.

This is mainly incorrect. The bank account was frozen after Rob's departure. That was fixed about a year ago, but is still in a tenuous state. The Board can draw funds as needed currently.

It's correct that we may be entering into a similar state in the near future due to the signing issue. Currently I am the only signer, and as such the only one with access. Unfortunately I am moving in the near future, and will not be able to maintain the account. At that time I'll need to close it and forward the check to an existing Board member. We will be in a similar (slightly better) state than we were after Rob left, as it will be a controlled hand-off. That date is fast approaching, FYI.

Theoretically yes, but meanwhile HiFo board decided to terminate itself and hand over all assets to MC eV.
MC e.V. and HiFo co-existing was a possible model where the eV would be a "Förderverein" only.

We thought it eventually would be doable for a regular bank to have signers accepted EU-wide for an account with reasonable fees + charges, but that's yet to be seen. Chemist is after it.

Yes, those 3 boardies signing at court have to be EU citizens or residents. But since board positions so far are unlimited, everybody may participate in addition.

Two.
There is no legal requirement to have a council in an eV.

Nobody is asking anyone to do anything illegal. Transitioning from "eV with council" to "eV without council" or any other kind of transition can be accomplished in a completely legal way, even if council or whatnot is mentioned in the bylaws. I'm sure you are aware of this.

And Nokia frowning (is that a legally binding term? what's the legal consequences of someone frowning over something?) over an eV without council... Is there a clause in any of the agreements with Nokia that states something to the effect of: "if you ever transition HiFo to a German eV, make sure there is a council installed in that eV, even if you see no need for a council!"
I don't think so.

If there was something mentioned in those agreements that requires a "council" and which board felt would need to be followed, there could be a 'working group' created within the community (NOT a body of the eV) called "council".

AHA!
10char

foobar, thanks for looking into things, exactly my knowledge as well.
Further info: german wiki-page

I saved most of my replies to Joerg into one post. Not to say it's not relevant the conversation, it is. But it's more rehashed correction than it is "new material".

Quite the ego you have there. A non-native speaker, telling a native speaker he doesn't understand the language.

Since we're speaking grammatically: You should say "of the English language". The "the" in this case is required, and skipping it is as offsetting to native speakers as interchanging der for ein would be in German. Also, names of languages are generally capitalized in English.

Again you use words incorrectly. I said I was one of three that took on the legal responsibility of crafting it, setting up the bylaws, and signing for the legal formation of it. Inventing implies I came up with the idea, which I did not. In fact, the community had discussed the possibility several times, long before I was involved.

And had I to do over again, no, I would not have done that final part. Not because I don't want to see Maemo continue. But because knowing the legal headaches and position of liability it has put me in, I would have simply avoided taking on a legal role.

I have e-mails from you, signed with your private key, threatening legal action against WinMac and myself. Are you now denying you did that? Would you allow me to publish the proof of that? You've burned yourself on this one before. Think before you answer.

This is one of my biggest gripes about you: You make agreements (or threats) in private, and then deny them in public (or in a smaller group). It's a common thread with you, which has replayed itself several times.

And when Chemist found a free alternative, and put that in place, you accused him of starting a coup. Do you recall mentioning that about 15 posts ago? Why was it "a coup"? If it was "just a service you were stopping", why would you be upset when someone else addressed that need?

Which is your problem. You see no linkage there, when there is in fact a legal requirement to have it. You want "command" without the liability. To do that, someone else must have liability without command. Good luck finding that.

Were you around for the term where Rob was sole Council? Or the one after that, where Council "did as it pleased" with CA, despite huge community uproar over it? There have been plenty of times where this exact scenario has been the case. To say it's not true, when it clearly has been true, and claim others have a "disconnect" with what Council is and is not seems... just like you, actually.


I agree that Council is there to advocate for the community, but no, it's not legally obligated to carry out the whims of the community. The community has called for Flash 10 on the N900 for ages. If enough people petition, should Council put that on the servers? No. There are levels of sanity and legality to consider here. Yet that's exactly what you ask of the Board: To obey and be legally obligated to carry out the whims of Council.

Council is exactly what most have claimed it to be: A focal point for the community to channel it's noise through to the entity in charge of legally maintaining and operating the "stuff". Nothing more, nothing less. It's not TechStaffs manager. It doesn't hire people at Nemein. It never controlled what Nokia did, or when/how it did it. It's largest product has been ego and hot-air, neither of which are in short supply now either.

excuse me when I stop reading on "Since we're speaking grammatically:". You boldly failed to get the point, and skimming the rest of your post it seems you don't ever get it.. We're NOT speaking "grammatically", it's you turning "A=B" into "A parrallel to B"
If my conception of "it's not like those, so it's X" meaning second "it's" referring to first "it's" and NOT to "those" or "apples" is incorrect, then sorry for my poor english.
Honestly, what do you tell your wife, when you talk to her? You already stopped beating her? (<-- this been a commonly used phrase when illustrating how to ask questions in a way that's not leading to a meaningful answer. You all the time do exactly this sneaky twisting of words. Or you take statements out of context and put them into a completely different, then go on tedious length about that false context and conclusions thereof. Lost you already? Hint: Estel: "you threatened to shut down servers" Me:"you are only copying woody's BS who has the copyright in that nonsense of me threatening anybody by anything [like shutting down servers], or just 'asking money for my services'." you:"ooh you liar! You did threaten! 9 years ago, you threatened me that I have to take the consequences of my illegal actions. I can PROVE that" Yeah, you can. Keep it, it's not been the question. Actually I didn't even make the statement you accuse me of it being a lie. I just said you have the copyright in that nonsense. and my "threat" stands and I repeat it publicly: when you spread lies that damage my professional reputation, I will take legal measures against that)
You started claiming "IT'S under gpl" (and insinuated that GPL was NOT FOSS). I said "no matter what IT'S been before, now IT'S xyz", you blamed me for saying "THEY are xyz" and corrected me on "THEY are _not_ xyz". In any school test you get a F for missing the topic - not for wrong grammar. (IT=midgard, THEY=servers).
Some monks or tora students learn that kind of rhetorical nonsensical debate, are you one of them? Anyway I thoroughly get bored by this absolutely futile silly argument.

And as part of this productive talk, you quickly ignored the one-and-a-half A4 page post reply that I gave you, explaining why your idea of how organization should work is:

a) completely absurd in the context of law (any law, to be honest, not only german one - as woodie rightly stated)

b) based on wrong assumptions (inherited from joerg, apparently) about Council having any role governing Board, at any time in the past.

Sure, you might have not find my wording pleasant, but running from talk base don *arguments* - by replying only to post by chemist (unrelated to any of your ideas) isn't a mature way for having a "productive talk".

Personal sympathies doesn't have a s**t to do with it - I may not like your view/behavior on many things lately, but still I have spent n amount of time to write long reply to your post, as I *thought* that you're really trying to contribute productively to that discussion. In such case, it deserved answer, not being sunk in the surrounding constant spoiled-kiddo-joerg related bickering. Instead, you're pushing it into your personal arguments with chemist - like it would be more important than the serious matters at hand. Disappointing...

/Estel