View Single Post
joerg_rw's Avatar
Posts: 2,222 | Thanked: 12,651 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ SOL 3
#154
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Well, Community could say "no" in the referendum or vote something idiotic by 2/3 majority of votes in General Assembly, which Board would be obliged to commit or step down. Then, it would probably end up with "winding down", as no one would like to take legal responsibility for organization working wrong way (if community would deny organizational changes in referendum), or to do something illegal (if such thing would be enforced on Board by 2/3 votes).

In such case, either new Board is elected and performs what Community decided - taking legal risk, that former Board wasn't willing to take - or, if Community demands something, but don't have people willing to do it (no candidates), organization would just get disbanded.

Summing it up - Board is not a bunch of "overlords". General Assembly is (aka, users from Community that are actively interested in deciding future of Maemo), and it just delegates representing them to Board. General Assembly can, always, change things by majority of votes (or choosing different Board).

/Estel
just too good, so I couldn't help but bite the bait.

s/GA/maemo community/ in above (since, AIUI GA is meant to be "the new community since we don't like and can't use the old real Maemo Community as defined by garage account), and I can't see where stuff differs from what I said all the time: council is community's proxy and thus the board is (logically, I DISagree on legally) supposed to do what council asks for. I think it would be pretty silly of a board to do something illegal just because council or whoever asks for it. It's board's duty to check if a request is legal, and to reject doing it when it's considered illegal. Usually board explans what's the problem, and when the requesting entity disagrees and insists nevertheless, then yes, the board may offer to step down. Nobody can force board to do something illegal, that's nonsense. When MCeV BoD is afraid that council could ask them to do something illegal, then what about GA?? Wouldn't it be all the more a reason to have only a limited small number of carefully selected regular members forming the GA? After all (HiFo, at least) BoD is supposed to be able to discard council (by "the big red button" aka re-election of both entities) when council goes too mad, while I don't see any such security fallback mechanism for GA.

Last edited by joerg_rw; 2014-10-03 at 13:20.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post: