No one said it states it, in the sense that it was explicitly stated. The claim is that the reason the bylaws provide for a Council at all, was for that purpose. And if you can sincerely tell me it was obvious to everyone involved that the Hildon Foundation Council was not supposed to phase out and replace the Maemo Community Council, then maybe you have a point, but as someone who had at least a small idea of theirs make it into the bylaws, I would point out it certainly wasn't obvious to me. And I'm pretty damn sure any reasonable person looking at the development of the bylaws would've thought the whole point of having a council in the bylaws is for it to subsume/replace the community council.

To be frank, I have difficulty believing that even you ever thought that that was not the point.

And as Woody, who actually /was/ at the meeting prior to that one, has stated before, the note in that meeting is a reference to the fact that in the prior meeting, the current Maemo Council was indeed recognized as HiFo Council. (Yes, I'm sure I paraphrased that in a way that gives that statement a slightly different meaning than Woody's in the legalese dialect of English, but I'm pretty sure it accurately encapsulates what woody was getting at.)

I agree that the meaning of the Bylaws, assuming they are well written, should be easy to establish by any reasonable person, and not just the authors. But if the in-context-in-which-it-was-written interpretation differs from the taken-literally-now interpretation, I would argue that is indicative of a flaw in how the bylaws were articulated, and the context-in-which-it-was-written (which is different from the intent of any author(s), although it includes it) should take precedence. And I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against the idea that the root reason for including a Council in the bylaws was to continue the community tradition of having a council, under the formal framework of HiFo.