The nomination period for Council and the Board of the new Foundation are ending in just under 48 hours.* To date we have had NO submissions for Council and only two for the Board.* If there's no interest in keeping Maemo.org going, ignore this and it very well may go away.

*

Also, what may be the final version of the bylaws (version 5) has been posted on the TMO thread where there's been a lively discussion going on.* For those involved in that, thank you.* For those who would like to check them out and comment, please hit the link.



Link: Original article.

If I may...

Would it be unreasonable to postpone the board elections and ask the current council to stay as a provisional board at least until the immediate infrastructure situation is resolved?

Electing a new board in mid-October, then doing a proper handover and letting the new people catch up with all the things you guys have been doing, ongoing negotiations etc, while the plugs are due to be pulled 2 months later (and during a holiday season where it would be next to impossible to find people and get them to do anything) seems like a recipe for disaster.

While I agree, it seems to me, that transferring current Council into provisional board, would need referendum in itself (as it's. in fact, elevating permissions for current Council, which require referendum, as per Council statute).

Which, I'm afraid, kinda defeats the purpose. Also, and what may be more important, we actually have some nice names nominating themselves for Board elections - I'm not sure if auto-nominating current Council as Board, wouldn't be kinda put down for those people.

/Estel

maybe the lack of candidates can also be seen as a vote of confidence by the Community for the current Council?
furthermore it makes sense to keep the current Council; the issues being dealt with are complex, more so i feel then the traditional "repository / package" bla bla that the Council had to deal with in the past.
doesn't it make sense for the current Council to carry on?

as to the board for the foundation...
we had Councils in the past with less then five candidatees; most recently, until last spring, Rob (SD69) was the sole active member
would it be completely unreasonable to institute Tim and Texrat as board?
hopefully they didn't apply for the "popularity contest" of the elections & all that crap...

thus:

• current Council carries on
• current candidates for the Board are tacitly elected

Nah, the foundation and its board are outside the scope of any current regulations.

The council merely represents the community to the board. It has no authority to enter agreements and do whatever else needs to be done to keep the lights on.

I lost interest when the current council immediately accepted expensive gifts from Nokia and effectively ignored criticism about it. Take your resounding mandate of 200 votes and do with it what you will.

if memory serves well, two members of the Council got a N950; one has been outed from the Council and the other has been on the Council for longer then anyone cares to count and has kept the Community alive bare-handedly. he got a N950 as reward to his fulfilled contributions to the Community. and he has been setting up the by-laws pretty much ever since...
(afterthought: you are an ungrateful prick)

if you wanted a N950 (another one?) so bad, maybe you should have applied then to get on the Council as well?

Which is related to *newly elected* (soon) Board of Directors and self-governed Hildon Foundation, in dozen ways, that You're going to explain now, to avoid looking like rant-man, right?


It would be, if not for a single "problem" - foundation and it's board is going to be "given" things belonging to "current" Community (and Council representing it), like repositories, domain and name, data from various servers, working units, etc. While I agree, that legally it's quite flexible, at least "good tone" require this takeover to be proceed with respect to regulations of current Community. Which means, via referendum.

After all, if "Community" is going to pass own "belongings" to be maintained by group of people (BoD), it's natural that "Community" does it following own regulations (election, referendum on accepting bylaws...).

Sure, legally, Nokia could just give those data to anyone they want - that why I've put "Community belongings" into quotas - but, this way, it would look rather like hostile takeover, than fair one.
---

Personally, I share [b[lma[/b]'s concerns - but, I understand why those people (current Council) want to do it following already existing regulations. And, despite old disagreements, I respect them for going "fair way" - I think it's better done like that.

/Estel

// Edit

Well, I've missed fragment about newly elected BoD being expected to resign, when handover is done, and Foundation starts working. Here I agree with lma totally - it is nice recipe for disaster, such "rain of elections" and handovers in so short time intervals.

But, instead of asking current Council to become initial BoD, I would propose, to make initial BoD full cadence one - after all, they're going to be elected, so no reason for them to resign after two or three months. Makes sense?

/Estel

I understand what you're saying, but legally the community doesn't exist and so those things don't belong to it. Without a foundation to receive them they will simply vanish forever at the end of the year anyway (even with a foundation, there are no guarantees that the current Nokia will do the right thing).

At this stage, a 3 week delay to wait for more candidates could be catastrophic. Unless at least a couple more (an unelected board would be bad for many reasons and would have serious problems negotiating with Nokia as you know first-hand) candidates magically appear by tomorrow, I'd rather postpone the elections and handover until things are in place. And after all, the current council has been elected by the community while it was well understood that getting the foundation started would be its primary responsibility. I see no reason why they shouldn't run it for a few months.

That's fine by me, but 2-3 months and a year are very different things and quite understandably they might not want to.

Well, I'm completely convinced by Your argumentation.

Frankly, possibility of *not* having enough BoD candidates until deadline, (for holding election) wasn't something that I took into account, or believed, that could happen (even now, I have sneaky suspicion, that few of current Councilors are going to throw their names into hat, at last moment).

*If* enough candidates appear, I'm all for voting and keeping elected BoD for full, year-time cadence. If, OTOH, we won't have enough candidate, lma's proposition seems most reasonable thing to do. Delaying everything via 3/4 of a month is asking for catastrophe, I agree.

/Estel