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

From: Andrew Flegg andrew at bleb.org
Date: Fri Aug 19 00:17:56 EEST 2011
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 16:11, Sunny B <sunnyb7532 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew at bleb.org> wrote:
>> 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..."

Better. The whole "binding" notion doesn't really work with a
representative council, elected by democratic mandate.

What if the 5 candidates all stand on an option *opposite* to the
result of the referendum? Or, more likely, there are two types of

  * People with the gumption and drive to see through the bureaucracy of
    setting up a not-for-profit (NFP) organisation: bye-laws; accounts;
    minuted meetings; secretary; registered office; appropriate
    jurisictional laws.

  * People who are active community members who want to evolve where we are
    and take a less confrontantional/more collaborative approach to
    the future of maemo.org.

Let's say we have Alice and Bob. Alice is eager to support the idea of
a NFP, has experience in various societies/clubs already and knows
what to do. Bob, however, has been a developer since the 770 days - he
just wants to make sure that whilst there are users of his software
they can get updates, and he can have the appropriate services to
engage with his users and manage his project.

Alice would be willing to serve on a council transitioning maemo.org
to a NFP. Bob would be willing to serve on a council which is taking a
migratory approach.

How will they work together? Both of them are volunteers, why should
they expect to be bound by a vote?

More to the point; if there are a sufficient number of Alices elected
- why is a referendum needed to "authorise" the Council to do it?
Anyone can form a NFP (if they're willing to do the work), and if it's
clear thats what they plan to do (and they propose some *actual*
concrete plan for how it would work, and what it would bring) when
they're standing, why do we need a referendum at all?

It's not like the NFP (let's call it NewOrg) will be empowered to go
to all registered maemo.org users and demand dues for the next 12
months (let's say $100 per year per account).

>  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.

I think the tone needs careful moderation Nokia won't "refuse" - it's
not a person. There are dedicated, hard-working, well-respected people
at Nokia who are members of the community and work with us. They will
pass on any requests and act as advocates where necessary (if _they_
can be persuaded).

The only reference I've seen to the use of "maemo.org" is in the
meeting minutes where, again, Niels says it's a no-go. He *isn't*
Nokia and, no offence Niels, it's not his place to say that.
Similarly, I've not seen any source for Nokia saying when they'll cut
funding off (which could be at the next budget cycle or after
2012-12-31, I've no idea).



Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org  |  http://www.bleb.org/
More information about the maemo-community mailing list