[maemo-community] Fwd: Election announcement article (formatting & questions)

[From: Sunny B]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew at bleb.org> wrote:

> 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"
>
> Yes, like this but "Should the Community Council be authorized so that it
can form..."  I might also say not limit it to maemo.org but say "support of
maemo devices and survival of maemo-based and derived open source software"
in case Nokia refuses to let us continue to use maemo.org.


> 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, ...)
>   [  ] ..."
>
> I would say no to this form of the question.  It should be a referendum on
the major issues that allows us to proceed not a poll on how to proceed.



> 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?
>

Well, like I said above I think the referendum should be whether or not to *
authorize* Council to implement a governance structure - not to decide a
specific structure or a specific course of action.  So a broad decision such
as to establish a non-profit foundation is not going to be affected by
changing circumstances.  It is the nature of referendum that it makes a
binding decision.  I would like the referendum to address and decide the
issue that is impeding the community's ability to move forward.  I do not
want to see maemo.org wound down, but if that's the vote, then I'll abide by
it (if I am a council member).



>
> 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.
>

Agreed, it is important to strike the right balance with this referendum -
giving Council the authority but not tieing their hands.

>
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20110818/07776f21/attachment.htm>