[maemo-community] By-Laws for Hildonfoundation

From: Craig Woodward woody at rochester.rr.com
Date: Mon Aug 27 17:57:22 EEST 2012
---- gregor herrmann <gregor+maemo at comodo.priv.at> wrote: 
>If there is interest in the maemo community to explore the SPI
>option, a short mail to board at spi-inc.org might be a simple first

We looked at several options, but most of them were unable or unwilling to take on the role of acting as provider for some of the needed services.  We're always open to alternatives, but we're also running out of time.  Forming an entity now is a known quantity that we know will work.  Even if we get a provider to help us, we'll still need a governing body to do the work for those services (which should not be Council, IMO).

>Or maybe clarified like you did in your mail? Like saying explicitly
>that the Foundation is just the legal body serving the existing Maemo

While that's implied several places, and is clearly our intent, it may not be spelled out in that exact wording.  Good catch.  It's input like this that we need.  :) 

>Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
>Couldn't we just say
>- the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of incorporation

This has been discussed, and for the most part rejected for several reasons.  One of the key reasons being that no one on Council wants that level of detail and responsibility to fall on Council.  There was talk of Council being the interim Board between foundation and the first election, but there are technical, legal, and political reasons that's undesirable.  As it stands, it looks as if the entity will be started just after the first election anyway, so an elected Board will pre-exist the foundation.

>- the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections now?

I suggested this as well, as a fall-back in case the first Board can not manage to accomplish it.  One key item to note is that the Board cycle is annual, not semi-annual, which should give them more than enough time to get this task done.  In reality, if there is no change before the first term ends, the default (AFAIK) would be to use the existing mechanism.  So for all intents and purposes, it's already setup this way.  But having it written out with clearer language to that effect is still a good idea, IMO.

Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback.  I'm sure we will have a couple of cycles of this to get all the changes in before crunch time.  All input and help is highly appreciated.
More information about the maemo-community mailing list