[maemo-community] Maemo Council

[From: robert bauer]

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah at jeremiahfoster.com
> wrote:

>
> On Oct 3, 2011, at 13:53, robert bauer wrote:
> > > I understand that there may be further objections on the general
> Council
> > > strategy, but lets try to discuss the ones that are preventing us to
> > > prepare a common statement.
> > Yes, please say what you disagree with rather than holding reservations.
>
> My focus _will_ be software development, so I disagree that the statement
> says that the council won't focus on that.
>
The point of the proposal is that Council is not to be selected for their
programming or other technical skills - nor should they be involved with the
technical decisions of those involved in projects.  If somebody wants to get
involved in actually doing software development, then Council is not the
place for that.  Council is more for management, facilitating, community
organization and advocacy, and representing the community to 3rd parties
(and taking on a heck of a lot of headaches).


> I also am not interested in changing the governance of Maemo - it seems to
> work and would just be confusing to move to a TSG model.
>
Well, Momcilo and I want to change the governance in ways that meet with
community approval.  These proposals lessen the role of council in actual
software development and differ from changes in which council assumes more
authority for itself.   We'll put out the proposals for comments and note
that you object to any change in governance.

>
> Other than those two objections I'm in agreement.
> >
> > It seems we need a balance then between Robert's urgency and a common
> agreement. I don't feel the same urgency but I'm willing to be flexible
> enough to try to support the goal of "getting something out now." If we want
> to create something common, then we'll have to take the time to come to an
> agreement. I did not sign up to run a non-profit, I don't have time for
> that, I signed up for helping ensure Free Software remains free and that
> developers know their options and that the community can preserve what it
> considers valuable to the best of its ability.
> > >
> > Well you did agree that Council should maket an announcement by October
> 1.  It is now October 3.  The council announcement says nothing about a
> non-profit.
> >
> > > We need to address later objections after announcement, and hopefully
> > > focus on real work.
> > >
> > > As Robert has pointed out, others are moving on as well, and for the
> > > moment, we as Council are invisible.
> >
> > This is why we should have these discussions on a mailing list - so it is
> public. Transparency is of the utmost importance. In fact, I'm going to cc a
> public list so that they can see these discussions and note that we are
> working and that the community can participate.
> > Of course, the community can participate.  The announcement was to be put
> on the community list (I think this one should be on the developers mailing
> list as well).  It contains two proposals, not two dictatorial decrees.
> >
> > >
> > > Having statement with reservations will not do us any good. I think it
> > > is very important to demonstrate the unity of the council in front of
> > > the community.
> >
> > What is the benefit of "unity" in this situation? Don't forget that most
> don't even see us as legitimate. :)
> > Qole is the only one I am aware of that sees us as illegitimate and he is
> wrong.  My history from the last 6 months is the most important thing is to
> be active rather than inactive.
>
> I agree. Then lets move forward with the announcement - I don't want to
> hold it up.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jeremiah
>
> [snip]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20111003/bbcdd4ed/attachment.htm>