[maemo-community] Draft Bylaws for Maemo Non-Profit Entity

[From: Misha Ketslah]

I think requirement of membership and Karma measures would cost only into
Power Games. I don't think it's hard to make karma ratings high if your
purpose is just to have high Karma and not really contribute. As well how
is membership is decided? Just to get registered? Than on other hand
vote-bots or "please vote for me" msgs would mess up the whole thing. I
think we need to learn the history of other open projects and how they
worked it out.

I would suggest that there should be few bodies. One of them
with responsibility for all legal, announcements, community and other
related stuff. And other are one who is responsible for Development vision,
those who lead CSSU. And i think it would be rational, while first one
community can vote for, second one is not about only popularity, but mostly
is how you really contribute. And make those bodies equal or share power
between them.

Just my idea and my 2 cents.

ZogG

On 11 July 2012 17:57, robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Andrew Flegg <andrew at bleb.org> wrote:
>
>> On 10 July 2012 17:06, robert bauer <nybauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps the section of most interest and discussion will be Membership
>> and
>> > Governance.  It is suggested that we keep the present "open" nature of
>> the
>> > maemo community to the extent practical.
>>
>> Why does HF need "membership"? It doesn't seem related to who can vote
>> the Board in.
>>
>
> It is related.  The subsequents Boards are selected by a vote of HF
> community members.
>
>
>
>> Perhaps it would be useful to have a wiki page or something where you
>> describe the "vision" underlying these Bylaws, and so what they're
>> trying to support.
>>
> The vision is to keep the governance similar to maemo.org, while
> complying with the necessary legalities for an NPE.
>
>
>
>>
>> On the voting section/changes, there's a clause:
>>
>> > [...] except the requirement that software must be freely available
>> under
>> > an open source license as defined by the Open Software Foundation.
>>
>> AFAICS, this is the first reference to this "requirement".
>>
>
> It's the last one in the Functions section.  Perhaps it's not clear that
> it is a "requirement" and so that could be clarified.  Should it be
> clarified in Functions or should it be made part of the Mission?
>
>
>
>>
>> However, on the whole, it looks like a good start. There seem to be
>> some gaps which the Community Council Election process covers, though:
>>
>> > The initial Board shall determine the voting criteria
>> > for community members eligible to select subsequent Board Directors.
>>
>> If this is in the Bylaws, doesn't it allow each Board to select how
>> the next Board is selected? Seems sloppy. Make it STV and counted like
>> the Council. Similarly there should be clauses in the Bylaws about
>> what happens if there aren't enough members to stand.
>>
>> It is meant that the Initial Board (the first Board) will decide how
> members will select all Directors in the future.  For example, should we
> keep the same karma calculation, and time and karma thresholds for being
> eligible to vote for and to be a member of the Board?  I think we
> should allow for the possibility to have someone from Nokia or Jolla be on
> the Board even if they don't have 100 karma under current system.  Rather
> than try to decide this in advance, the proposal is to select the very
> first Board according to present criteria and then they can decide what
> will work best after seeing how the organization shapes up.  I also worry
> if there aren't enough members to stand, and especially qualified member to
> stand. Maybe we should say "up to" 5.
>
>
>
>> STV makes sense if people are running for a pool place, but should the
>> Board have defined roles which are elected to?
>>
>
> We're trying not to make assumptions in case the NPE does not have the
> infrastructure to do karma or STV.  If we want to have a President elected
> specifically to that role, I don't see why not.  But I would like to keep
> it flexible and not have multiple roles in case we have, for example, just
> three people who agree to be on the Board.
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> PS. Are you sure "Hildon" isn't trademarked by Nokia?
>>
> I am sure it is not in the US.  Of course, we may not use Hildon at all in
> the future.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> maemo-community mailing list
> maemo-community at maemo.org
> https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/attachments/20120711/d2793cb2/attachment.htm>