Reply
Thread Tools
Moderator | Posts: 6,215 | Thanked: 6,400 times | Joined on Nov 2011
#101
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
I don't see any point to the Foundation if this is where we are as a "community"
Let's just put it down to teething issues?

They both are doing for the greater good so its not a split as a "community" but simply the issue of "Doing things the right way vs. doing the right thing" - © SD69


Both of them are right after all...

Maybe SD69 was disclosing that as it was sent to more than just him? As he mentions woody sent it to a few people so seeing the s*itstorms created here for every minor thing he wants to avoid being involved in it in the future by being seen as related to woody's intentions via association?

Oh and that email doesn't smudge woody's character IMO; it just shows the lengths to which current Council are prepared to go to save the Community's future...


Anyway its water under the bridge...

Last edited by thedead1440; 2012-10-17 at 06:03.
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to thedead1440 For This Useful Post:
Moderator | Posts: 6,215 | Thanked: 6,400 times | Joined on Nov 2011
#102
Dear Council,

Clarifications required:

Nominees may withdraw their nomination up to three (3) days after the end of the nomination period.
Withdraws shall be considered retro-active, and shall trigger any appropriate actions needed to
continue the election cycle, including extension of the nomination period or changes to the number of
seats to be chosen during an election.

This means that if there are 4 candidates and 1 withdraws, then an extension of the nomination period has to be granted as 3 is the minimum number of seats that need to be finalised right with a minimum of 4 candidates standing?

So let's say after nomination period is extended, 1 candidate nominates him/herself and then we have 4 candidates. If any candidate withdraws within 3 days of the end of the extended nomination period, then what? Another extension?

Can we have a clause here that after 1 extension is granted, there will be no further extensions and the previous BoD carries on for another 3 months? Elections are hence held after 3 months?



Withdraws done after three (3) days past the end of the
nomination period shall be considered invalid, and elections will continue with the listed nominee on
the ballot. In the event that a late-withdrawing nominee is elected, the withdraw shall be treated as
written consent of the Director to immediately and voluntarily vacate the position.
So if the late-withdrawal is considered as having consented not to take a position in the BoD and he is one of the 3 to have been elected then new elections are called? Can we instead simply state that the candidate who lost out to this late-withdrawal is instead given a seat in the BoD?


P.S. Everything else seems fine IMO

Last edited by thedead1440; 2012-10-17 at 10:58.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to thedead1440 For This Useful Post:
Moderator | Posts: 5,320 | Thanked: 4,464 times | Joined on Oct 2009
#103
I want to add a whole bunch of feedback, hopefully within the next 48hr, also some stuff that's related but perhaps slightly off-topic, I hope I'm not too late!
 

The Following User Says Thank You to jalyst For This Useful Post:
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#104
Originally Posted by thedead1440 View Post
This means that if there are 4 candidates and 1 withdraws
Hmmm.. The concept was that the nomination period is extended once by at least one week (to at least 21 days, where it was at least 14 before that). This made me catch a few mistakes actually. How about this:

If at any time fewer than four (4) nominees remain after the nomination period for either the Foundation Council or the Board of Directors, the nomination period for that body shall be extended to at least twenty one (21) days, or to at least seven (7) days longer than the initial nomination period, and a second announcement of election shall be made, noting the extension of the nomination period. If no additional nominations are received within the extended nomination period, or further extension would cause the election cycle to exceed sixty (60) days, the Board shall decide the appropriate action at that time, including but not limited to appointment, installment, or rejection of some or all of the nominees or existing Directors to the respective body.
One more thought (I hate that I missed this). We should put a max cap on things too. This wording should suffice:
The election cycle shall consist of at least fourteen (14) days for nominations, at least seven days (7) for nominee discussion and reflection, and at least seven (7) days for electorate members to vote, in that order. The election cycle shall not exceed thirty (30) days, except for in the case of mandatory nomination extension in which case the election cycle shall not exceed sixty (60) days.
That should catch all issues, yes?

After the initial extension, if nominations are not received the appropriate action is determined by the current leadership of the respective body. If received and withdrawn, it could in fact trigger another extension if the first was under 30 days, but only to a max of 4 weeks total.

Originally Posted by thedead1440 View Post
Can we have a clause here that after 1 extension is granted, there will be no further extensions and the previous BoD carries on for another 3 months? Elections are hence held after 3 months?
I don't think there's a need to explicitly set out exact verbiage for this in the bylaws as to what exactly must happen when the election cycle time ends without enough candidates (even after extension). Things may change over time, so allowing the existing Board to decide seems the reasonable solution.

Originally Posted by thedead1440 View Post
So if the late-withdrawal is considered as having consented not to take a position in the BoD and he is one of the 3 to have been elected then new elections are called?
As it's currently written, yes.

Originally Posted by thedead1440 View Post
Can we instead simply state that the candidate who lost out to this late-withdrawal is instead given a seat in the BoD?
I (and others) think that's not the best way to go. What's to say the next candidate still wants the position? What if it was a 4 person election, and the 4th runner was not desired by most of the community?

Allowing the existing two to continue on while simply restarting the process again seems reasonable. Yes, it's a short term (three weeks to at the most two months), but I'd rather a short term than to mandate someone into place for a year that may be undesirable.

One last option: We may change the wording in the forced election cycle clause to read something like this:

If at any point more than one Director is expelled during a single term, or fewer than three (3) Director positions are occupied (not vacant or expulsed) for a period exceeding seven (7) days, a new election cycle shall be required to be announced and will commence immediately upon the triggering vacancy or expulsion.
That would give the other two Directors seven days to appoint another Director, but it would have to be unanimous at that point, since neither would hold a majority. If they can't agree to someone in 7 days, a new election starts.

Thoughts?
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post:
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#105
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
I don't see any point to the Foundation if this is where we are as a "community"
Grandma (Maemo) has gotten an eviction notice. We have 3 months to decide where she goes and who cares for her, or she's out on the street. And it will take at least a month to move all her stuff out, maybe longer with the few friends we have to help. Will there be squabbling in the family over who should care for her, and where she should live? Sure. Does that mean we should just let her go homeless?

Yes, there is infighting at times. Yes, there are disagreements at times. No community is without disagreement. But to suggest that there's no point to trying to continue because of a couple squabbles is like letting grandma become a hobo because Aunt June doesn't like the way the doilies are being divided up.
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014

Last edited by woody14619; 2012-10-17 at 21:23.
 

The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post:
peterleinchen's Avatar
Posts: 4,117 | Thanked: 8,901 times | Joined on Aug 2010 @ Ruhrgebiet, Germany
#106
Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Thoughts?
Sounds reasonable.

And yes, dont let her get homeless.
But I have seen so less attention/reaction on this thread, except a few fellow members ...
__________________
SIM-Switcher, automated SIM switching with a Double (Dual) SIM adapter
--
Thank you all for voting me into the Community Council 2014-2016!

Please consider your membership / supporting Maemo e.V. and help to spread this by following/copying this link to your TMO signature:
[MC eV] Maemo Community eV membership application, http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=94257

editsignature, http://talk.maemo.org/profile.php?do=editsignature
 

The Following User Says Thank You to peterleinchen For This Useful Post:
misterc's Avatar
Posts: 1,625 | Thanked: 998 times | Joined on Aug 2010
#107
Originally Posted by peterleinchen View Post
Sounds reasonable.

And yes, dont let her get homeless.
But I have seen so less attention/reaction on this thread, except a few fellow members ...
don't equal lack of (re-)action to lack of interest.
a lot of N9(00)s owner browse here, hoping (or even assuming?) that... Maemo.org will pull if off.
did you ever (except in some of my posts >¦-) see a NOKIA logo on this site? readers always thought of Maemo.org as an independent entity.
NOKIA pulling out?
so?

so, yes, ppl care, they just don't realize how much they (should) care
__________________
information is a necessary though no sufficient condition to rationality...
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to misterc For This Useful Post:
Posts: 203 | Thanked: 445 times | Joined on Mar 2010
#108
Or they just don't feel fluent enough in English legal-speak.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foobar For This Useful Post:
woody14619's Avatar
Posts: 1,455 | Thanked: 3,309 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Rochester, NY
#109
Ok, Revision 7... Just about 24 hours before the election for Board ends.

Please check and review. To see deltas from previous versions, see the respective pdf links in those posts further back in this thread.

Rev 5 to 6
Rev 4 to 5
Rev 3 to 4

We've come a long way from the initial version, but I think it's pretty solid at this point.
Attached Files
File Type: gz Bylaws-rev6to7.pdf.gz (116.3 KB, 91 views)
File Type: gz Bylaws-rev7.odt.gz (16.7 KB, 89 views)
File Type: gz Bylaws-rev7.pdf.gz (115.6 KB, 120 views)
__________________
Maemo Council Member: May 2012 - November 2012
Hildon Foundation founding member.
Hildon Foundation Board of Directors: March 2013 - Jan 15, 2014
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to woody14619 For This Useful Post:
Texrat's Avatar
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#110
Originally Posted by woody14619 View Post
Grandma (Maemo) has gotten an eviction notice. We have 3 months to decide where she goes and who cares for her, or she's out on the street. And it will take at least a month to move all her stuff out, maybe longer with the few friends we have to help. Will there be squabbling in the family over who should care for her, and where she should live? Sure. Does that mean we should just let her go homeless?

Yes, there is infighting at times. Yes, there are disagreements at times. No community is without disagreement. But to suggest that there's no point to trying to continue because of a couple squabbles is like letting grandma become a hobo because Aunt June doesn't like the way the doilies are being divided up.
I've been here a long, long time now. Helped build the thing. We've had plenty of squabbles. But nothing like the current discouraging tenor and low level of community involvement.

And I already knew the details all too well. Maybe I'm just venting pent up anxiety. I definitely don't want Maemo to evaporate.

EDIT: at this point I believe the best solution for assets would be to see if they could be taken over by Jolla.

EDIT 2: some of you are taking that last line WAY too far.

I'm frustrated by the infighting. I'm now concerned it's going to scuttle any chance of a Maemo survival solution. So I offered up Jolla as a potential savior.

Obviously I could have chosen my words better. But for people to attack me outright instead of taking my history here into consideration is beyond belief.

I have always worked in the best interests of the Maemo community. How quickly some forget.
__________________
Nokia Developer Champion
Different <> Wrong | Listen - Judgment = Progress | People + Trust = Success
My personal site: http://texrat.net

Last edited by Texrat; 2012-10-19 at 04:22.
 
Reply

Tags
best wishes, council, whats going on?

Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 14:31.