[maemo-community] Election announcement article (formatting & questions)
From: Andrew Flegg andrew at bleb.orgDate: Thu Aug 18 17:34:08 EEST 2011
- Previous message: Election announcement article (formatting & questions)
- Next message: Maemo Elections - September 2011
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 15:16, Sunny B <sunnyb7532 at gmail.com> wrote: > > The wording is still to be debated (until August 22nd). I don't > know why you are unclear about what the referendum is deciding. I'm "unclear" on the extent of the referendum and the options. However, as you say: > But I guess debating the wording will provide additional clarity. Indeed. I quote: "GOVERNANCE REFERENDUM - Due to Nokia's announcement that it will stop funding for maemo.org in 2012, there will be a referendum and a vote to determine the future of maemo.org. There will be an opportunity to vote in favor of updating the role of Council so that it can organize a form of governance for the community OR in favor of winding down maemo.org when the funding stops (thus making new form of governance unnecessary)." Is this a binary selection: "Should the Community Council form a governance structure which sees the continued survival of maemo.org without Nokia involvement? [ ] Yes [ ] No" Is this a selection between options: "What action should the Community Council take in preparation for Nokia's withdrawal of funding for maemo.org infrastructure? [ ] Nothing [ ] Find additional sponsors [ ] Open a PayPal fund [ ] Join an existing organisation (e.g. LF, SPI, Debian, ...) [ ] ..." Is it something else? That's what I'm not clear on, and why I asked about the wording. > At least the primary issue is whether maemo.org should be wound > down when Nokia funding stops. Indeed, and then there's all sorts of things when you say something like: > The results of the referendum will be binding on the incoming council. Really? That's not been discussed, so where did it come from? What happens if the Council decides the landscape has fundamentally shifted again? (e.g. Nokia changes its strategy, gives all maemo.org users N9s, ...) Are they bound to continue a course of action which is then widely considered to be incorrect? What's "maemo.org"? If there's a transition plan to shutdown garage.maemo.org but continue running lists.maemo.org, is that "continuing maemo.org"? All things which need to be considered when using words like "binding", IMNSHO. Especially if options might not consider the nuances like someone wanting to vote for "maemo.org can be 'wound down' as long as there is a software building & distribution mechanism, repository and some form of QA processes [even if it's manual decisions by the packager]; but these are the things which must be continued at all costs". Such thoughts could lead one to ask people to prioritise the services they want, for example. However, that rapidly gets complicated and horrible to manage in terms of the election. Cheers, Andrew [1] "due to Nokia's announcement that it will stop funding for maemo.org in 2012" - *Niels* has said "In reality, the servers will stay on until 31-12-2012" in the meeting you had[2]. Can you confirm what *Nokia* has said, rather than a Nemein contractor? Will Nemein turn the servers off at that point no matter if someone steps forward to cover the costs (which *will* need to be published at a high-level if we're to realistically work out if there's a viable continuation plan)? [2] http://www.mwkn.net/2011/33/community.html#community-2 -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
- Previous message: Election announcement article (formatting & questions)
- Next message: Maemo Elections - September 2011
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]