[maemo-community] 2014-09-02_meeting_minutes

[From: joerg Reisenweber]

On Sat 20 September 2014 21:55:10 Gido Griese wrote:
> Indeed such behaviour is intolerable and must stop either way
> (unsolicited or by force).
which exactly?

> Sadly it also sums the respect towards those who actually do care about
> community
Implying you care about community and I don't. Highly arguable and an implicit 
disrespect and insult in itself.

> and are actively participating in evolving it towards a stable
> self-driven organisational structure.
Implying that it wasn't stable neither self-driven before win7mac showed up. 
Evidently wrong.

> Constructive input from joergs
> side OTOH is pending since the idea of an eV was put into words 
Incorrect since "the idea of an eV was put into words" by me myself long 
before win7mac knew what's IRC or council or HiFo.

>(and I
> pointed to the crucial point from the very beginning:
> http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?p=1370715#post1370715).
he's claiming intellectual property of some fact that I made win7mac aware of, 
long before that thread he pointed to started.

> Also, disrespect towards any kind of organisational authority 
Neither win7mac nor HiFo at large is any authority for council. No matter how 
hard win7mac tries to insinuate the opposite. Any perceived disrespect from my 
side is based on that fact that there is no authority to respect and somebody 
tries to force me to change my mind regarding that. No, I won't!

> seems to
> be somebodys hobbyhorse here too. 
See above. Unless maybe he talks about himself and estel_

> While claiming to be the only true
> community-saviour, 
I'm only claiming to have read and understood the written rules, to start 
with. Which you obviously didn't, see below for more on that topic.

> constantly knocking over honourable and engaging
> community members (there's quite a list already) 
Like win7mac and estel_? Or like woody who replied a polite answer from my 
side with "FUCK YOU JOERG!" and quoted some unrelated nonsensical excerpt of a 
private query we had some 9 months before?

>obviously doesn't lead
> nowhere and ruins any community in the long term. 
it always takes two to tango. And excuse me for not taking shit.

> This needs to stop
> either way too.
Then how about you starting with stopping? E.G. by not posting stuff like this 
one I correct here

> 
> > The MCeV is an entity and chain of command
> > is "General Meeting>Board>Council"
> > 
> >> See above. No Way. Council doesn't take any orders from anybody except
> >> from
> >> community via referendum...
> 
> Correct, Council doesn't take any orders from anybody In the MC eV, you
> made that up somewhere; 
*I* made something up here? Again implicit insult.

> chain of command is more like "General Meeting
> next to Council > Board". 
fuzzy and vague. But better than not saing anything about it, or admitting 
that the original "General Meeting>Board>Council" is plain wrong, eh?

> Nevertheless, Council has to adhere to its'
> organisational structures (MC eV rulings) since it is a part of it.
No! I explained that to win7mac a dozen times already. Council CANNOT become a 
subordinate part of any other entity and that entity's rules, unless community 
approves new MAEMO COUNCIL RULES by a referendum. Him insisting in such magic 
change of council rules allegedly happened is starting to feel rogue and 
sneaky.

> AGAIN, it is written in MC eV bylaws § 7 (5):
> "The Board of Directors executes the Council's and General Assembly's
> rulings."
Irrelevant to maemo council and the maemo council rules. It's for sure a 
regulation that's as good as it gets and would work as long as BoD and General 
Assembly would not insist in redefining stuff but simply would agree on acting 
according to the spirit of the whole thing. Particularly General Assembly 
would need to accept that council is the only valid community representative 
and Assembly must not fight council but cooperate with it. Actually such 
general assembly is the problem that been known from beginning and everybody 
thought we can keep it small and cooperative, based on a maybe half a dozen 
trusted intelligent honored community members who understand the problem and 
act accordingly, cooperating with council.

> Board may of course deny execution of rogue or unlawful requests, which
> leaves room for interpretation (what exactly is rogue?), so all this is
> kind of relative. 
Nevertheless all this is what I said from beginning, and the relativity in it 
isn't a problem as long as no obtuse members of General Assembly or BoD turn 
everything into a WW-I battlefield.

> MC eV won't execute Council's rulings unless Council
> identifies itself as being part of MC eV though.
Nice! Extort council. Very democratic.

> Council can't be some
> group beyond any organisational structure it wants to take influence on.
Council doesn't have the duty of "wanting to take influence", it has a 
stewardship function and executes what community asks for. The WHOLE 
community, not some appointed members of a eV. Then it tells BoD about such 
wishes from community (after discussion internal and with community) and  "the 
Board of Directors executes the Council's ... rulings"
The intention and meaning of OP's statement is obscure to me, sorry.

> Should be self-explanatory...
Oh? sorry when I have some problems with getting it then.

> What's far more important IMHO is that Board, Council and General
> Meeting are having a healthy self-perception and don't feel as opponents
> but as partners. 
And you are the inventor of cooperation, right? IIRC it's been you calling me 
names when I told you I won't take orders from you, particularly when I'm 
busy.

> They are wheels in a machinery and only together they
> can move. Unless each party is pulling on the same rope in the same
> direction, Maemo society can't evolve.
While this isn't about evolution but rather keep alive, I wish you would act 
according to what you preach nevertheless.

> 
> Communitys' legal entity is the operator of maemo.org.
No. The legal entity is the *owner* which is something completely different 
than the operator. First HiFo officially assigned the duty of *operating* 
maemo.org to council. I pointed at that several times in this thread now, and 
asked to have a read of HiFo meeting-minutes when in doubt of the correctness 
of my words.

> Why would a sane mind ignore the fact that there's no Nokia Community
> Manager (http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council/Election_process) 
nobody does. Another implicit insult.

> and
> no Nokia-generated information (http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council)
> anymore?! 
See above

> Council FAQ (http://wiki.maemo.org/Community_Council/FAQ)
> needs serious rework too.
So far nobody had problems with it since we all where *aware* that things 
changed and that some of the rules don't apply anymore, or need interpretation 
to match the changed situation. We had more pressing afairs so far in council 
that to start a referendum to change things just for formal reasons.

> This is not a question of Philosophy but of adhering to reality and
> legal as well as Nokia-contractually relevant requirements.
Vague, and unclear intention of statement. Insinuating that council has lost 
contact to reality? Maybe _somebody_ has, actually. Implicit insult?

> 
> > "big red button" re-election of *both* entities
> 
> ...may be established any time, if desired.
Then why isn't it there already? It's not about the possibility to implement 
such rule, my concerns are exactly about the *desire* (or rather the obvious 
lack thereof) at side of those who came up with this stuff and vowed "it's ONE 
HUNDRED PERCENT IDENTICAL to maemo council rules and HiFo bylaws". IF there 
was any such desire, then such stuff would already be there. To hope for it 
getting implemented when needed is a pipe dream.

> General Regulations and Bylaws may be altered within given-by-law
> borders, nothing is set in stone.
sorry, no more than "HAHA" comes to mind.

> The major point is that MC eV (like ANY other eV) is designed (by law)
> to be member-controlled. General Meeting HAS to be the highest
> jurisdiction and since it was them (in the kickoff-meeting) to establish
> those rules, they HAVE to remain authority to alter them, BY LAW.
So what? Nobody forced you to redefine community though.
MCeV got the regulation that members get accepted (or rejected) by parts of 
the eV (forgot if BoD, council, GA, whatever). 
***Why not use this rule to *limit* the number of members (which form the GA) 
rather than trying to expand it to the 60000some members in garage? As already 
explained above, a half a dozen of honored members in GA would for sure be 
able to cooperate with council and community (though I already lost all faith 
in that to be a true statement, it seems even in half a dozen you already have 
at least 2 who want to fight instead of cooperate)
###############################################
above section is important, if TL;DR then read this at least!
###############################################

> 
> > ...all this mess-up happening to community - all the damage to the
> > carefully designed and adjusted proven-to-work democratic rules introduced
> > by two persons in HiFo rushing over all those rules in an ignorant and
> > sloppy way...
> 
> This obviously is your interpretation of things 
yes, Captain Obvious, and I think I'm right on it

> since you decided to
> refuse to either work on the bylaws
That's neither correct nor an explanation why I consider stuff messed up

> or to adopt to obvious requirements.
AGAIN, just for those who need it more than a dozen times to finally get it:
COUNCIL CANNOT ADOPT TO ANYTHING WHICH COUNCIL RULES FORBID!

> Fact is, those declared as "carefully designed and adjusted
> proven-to-work democratic rules" are completely outdated
Now that's not a fact but "This obviously is your interpretation of things"

> and simply
> don't respect reality.
Talking about respect a lot, huh? If only you had some for council, instead of 
patronizing and educating them, INCORRECTLY. 
And for the Maemo Council Rules.

> Also please finally get that I myself suggested a referendum
> (http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=93566&highlight=referendum), no
> dissent here, only plenty of gunpowder smoke from your side...
You maybe suggested a referendum, yet you all the time state stuff that 
completely ignores the fact that such a referendum is needed to change the 
rules and right now they are NOT what you perpetually state they were. Maybe 
one day eventually they will be what you hope them to be and will fit into your 
concept, right now your concept is INCOMPATIBLE to the rules and you 
constantly deny that fact and bash me for pointing you at it.

> 
> > ...and all this happily supported by majority of new council - isn't
> > compliant with my moral codex of adhering to the rules that I am liable to
> > as a council member and about being honest to the community who elected
> > me, I'm announcing my general veto...
> 
> LOL, your general what? 
Says WHO? Explicit insult.

> You seriously are attempting to fool people with
> such a sloppy "announcement"? 
I'm not attempting *anything*, I'm covering my rear since I consider the stuff 
you do (and council, by following your indoctrination) as *illegal*.

> Stick it back to where you draw it from...
Insult. But hey, also style. When arguments get thin, wording gets bold.

> Your moral codex went to your head it seems. 
Dunno where your moral lives, mine always been in my head.

> Democracy means something
> like accepting majorities, I believe?

wiki democracy for that, for a start at least.
>>>Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of 
which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its 
will.<<<
anyway all of them are about a lot more than just "accepting majorities"
If you however meant "Shut up joerg! Me and two other guys ganged up to do it 
different, so you finally should accept that we are stronger (=majority) than 
you, and stop pointing at the flaws of our plan" then you're thoroughly 
mistaken on what democracy means.

> 
> > to tall this and - due to the fact this isn't
> > considered any relevant - will refrain from any further active
> > participation in such rogue activity. Maemo at large finally reached a
> > state where I don't want to participate any longer.
> 
> Conspirational or obstructional activity is not an option
Oh fine! Tell that Chemist about his offsite backup infra coup.
However I don't get it what you're talking about, I announced that my activity 
will *end* here and now. And actually *all* my maemo community related 
activity will end, after sending this post. You won, community will nominate 
you for some title. Don't let estel_ hand the price to you, he will take it 
for himself.

> and
> non-tolerable. Please show responsible and draw the natural consequence
Which would be? Shoot my head? Shoot yours?
If that's still been too complicated for you: I ALREADY DID act in 
consequence, and that I write this one last post is just for community, not 
for you.

> on your own (or if not, in return let others help you show the way,
King of cooperation. Maybe another title for you? I suggest you at least apply
Thanks for the help anyway, bit No Thanks, not needed.

> since you already have proven to be untenable on several occasions, 
Thanks, that's not only a proof of your cooperation but actually a compliment 
I like to return to sender.

> for
> HiFo as well as MC eV as well as Council). 
On a sidenotr, seems that's not you to decide that, and a number of voters 
disagreed on that notion of yours.

> Everybody should also keep in
> mind the commercial interest joerg has, 
Tanks for the advertisment. Unsolicited but welcome.

> which he himself pointed out
according to maemo council election rules..

> here: http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2014-June/006001.html
> It all becomes too obvious now 
Maybe to you, enlighten us! (oh I forgot to count, missed: 2 more insults and 
one bashing)

> and if a Nokia Community Manager still was
> in place, joerg obviously never would have made it as councilor, 

are you really so obtuse? I already asked you what in
>>>Nominees with a professional interest in Maemo, such as working for Nokia - 
or any other company involved in Maemo-related software development - must 
declare their interest when advertising their nomination<<<
makes you think so.

Maybe the next sentence
>>>Failure to do so may result in the Nokia Community Manager, or the outgoing 
Council, declaring their nomination invalid and so bar them from standing in 
the current election.<<< - huh?
READ AGAIN!
As you yourself already conveniently pointed out, I did  NOT fail to declare 
my "professional interest"
So stop spreading utter lies! It falls all back to you. And it clearly shows 
that with such a MCeV it's not my fault when stuff goes haywire. You yourself 
also pointed out that the whole thing can only work based on mutual trust and 
cooperation. Sorry my dear when I fail to sense any will for cooperation and 
also fail to feel any trust when it comes to you.


> But I'm starting to repeat myself and all this struggling is getting
> tedious.
Indeed. that's why I divorced from maemo. I got my local backups, don't need 
the rest, really!

Farewell, maemo!
jOERG
-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign
/\  
against html e-mail - against proprietary attachments
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil.shtml          
http://www.nonhtmlmail.org/campaign.html
http://www.georgedillon.com/web/html_email_is_evil_still.shtml    
http://www.gerstbach.at/2004/ascii/ (German)