[maemo-community] 2014-09-02_meeting_minutes

[From: Woody14619]

> On September 20, 2014 at 6:54 PM joerg Reisenweber <joerg at openmoko.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

So now you're admitting we had that conversation now?  Are you reading that
Board?

Reality is you've gone out of your way to target anyone willing to help keep the
community afloat the *second* they stop following *your* idea of what's best. 
The first disagreement, and everyone not on your side is your enemy, and always
has been (like it's 1984). You twist words, publicize private conversations when
it suits you, and then cry foul (or claim it's all lies) when the same is done
to you.


> Oh fine! Tell that Chemist about his offsite backup infra coup.

Just to be clear:  You mean when Chemist found a free backup alternative and put
it in place with the help of two other members of Tech Staff?  After you
*demanded* payment for the "service" you were using to do backups, and stated
you would cease to do so?  That "coup"?  I don't recall it being a coup. I
recall it as the Board deciding (as a whole, we voted on this) to take another
path.

I would again like to thank the rest of Tech Staff for their continued service
to the community, especially for putting up with the political BS that most of
them avoid and want no part in.


> isn't a problem as long as no obtuse members of General Assembly or BoD turn
> everything into a WW-I battlefield.

I agree.  You should not be in either.  But that's probably not what you meant.


> ***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?

I see.. So you want things to be more democratic by limiting those in the GA?  A
hand-picked group of 6... Picked by whom?  You?  If not by you, then who?? 
Surely you'd object if WinMac, Estel, or myself would be the ones picking those
6, right?

I don't think anyone is advocating 60,000 members in the GA.  Rather that
initial membership in GA is by request, and that having a garage account is
essentially an "instant grant" into GA.  This would limit GA to those community
members already in the system who take the effort to fill in the proper form to
join the GA.  That will likely be in the range of 60 to 80 people based on
election turn-outs, which is quite reasonable.  The GA can also add people to
itself later, including those without garage accounts and without "Karma".


> Council ...  tells BoD about such
> wishes from community (after discussion internal and with community) and  "the
> Board of Directors executes the Council's ... rulings"

Ah.. But that's not what's happened in the past.  What's happened in the past
is:

o Community has issues, Council filters & sends concise request to Nokia.
o Nokia thinks about it 3 months, and 20% of the time does *something* to
address the request, usually not in the way it was asked.

Council never gave "rulings" or "commands" to Nokia, yet that's exactly what you
advocate/imagine here.  You want Council to have direct say, to "command" what
the business side does.  The problem is that you also want to keep it free of
the liability of those choices.  That will never fly.

If you want to have Council have direct or legal say in the matter, then it has
to take on the responsibility and liability as well, and be part of the legal
framework.  If Council is not part of the framework, then it will be just as "in
command" as it was when Nokia was holding the reigns.  Frankly, I'm all for
that.  Council stays separate, and has NO legal say in anything.  The GA/e.V.
operates and takes requests from Council as just that: requests.

My one regret in hind-sight was writing Council into HiFo's charter.  It was the
single largest point of argument, and the hardest thing to reconcile post
incorporation.  Had I to do it over again, I wouldn't, frankly.  (And by that, I
mean HiFo, not just incorporating Council.)


> > Communitys' legal entity is the operator of maemo.org.
> No. The legal entity is the *owner* which is something completely different
> than the operator.

Glad to see you're in agreement now that HiFo owns said hardware.  You have
argued against that in the past.

HiFo actually *delegated* the task of operation to Council/Tech Staff.  Legally,
HiFo has the requirement to operate, or to see to the operation of, that site. 
It has full right to delegate that, or rescind that delegation at any time, for
any reason, as they are still *legally responsible* for it's proper operation. 
They also have the right to restrict anyone from activity if they are behaving
in a way inconsistent with what they consider to be best for the community. 
That includes legal and illegal activity, as is their right and responsibility
as *owner* of said property.

Nokia did the same thing; it delegated the operation to a company for hire:
Nemien.  But Nokia still had full right to pull that back, and to give Nemien
direction on what to change.  They gave Nemien free reign for the most part, to
use their own in-house CM system, for example.  In the end, Nokia exercised that
right to instruct the consolidation of Maemo.org on to new hardware for hand
over to us.  HiFo being owner, as you now appear to be agreeing to finally, has
that same right.


> So far nobody had problems with [interpreting rules] since we all where
> *aware*
> that things changed and that some of the rules don't apply anymore,

Actually, YOU have had several problems with "interpreting" these rules to match
reality.  The Karma situation being one key example of that, this being
another.  The fact that you're objecting is the *exact* reason a referendum is
now being proposed, to make clear what those rules are instead of relying on
"interpretation".


> > > "big red button" re-election of *both* entities
> > ...may be established any time, if desired.
> Then why isn't it there already?

Actually it is.  The General Assembly can call for an election at any time (and
for it's own meeting), given the proper ratio of GA members.  The fact that you
don't know that, and continue to insist otherwise, is part of the issue.


> > 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!

Please point out to me which Council rule forbids it from being able to agree to
being part of another entity.  I see none preventing that.  I see 90% of
Council's "rules" are around election procedures.  Those would have to be
changed to use GA body as its electoral base IF joint elections were desired. 
Until then both would have to hold separate elections, like Hifo/Council did
their first election.

Again, I advocate for the complete separation of the two.  Council is Council
and does it's thing, making requests of the e.V., with no direct control or
influence.  The GA/e.V. are separate and own/operate m.o on the communities
behalf, once taking that responsibility from HiFo.  Simple, clean, requires no
referendums, and keeps Council political crap out of e.V.


> > > me, I'm announcing my general veto...
> > LOL, your general what?
> Says WHO? Explicit insult.

Yes, that is an explicit insult.  You are saying YOU ALONE have the right to
"veto" the will of the rest of Council.  So you're aware:  Veto means to
override the will of the majority. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.  THAT is what
Gido is laughing at:  Your brazen self-aggrandizement, thinking you have some
special say in things and can stop things on your own if you disagree with them,
when the rest of Council fully agrees on the next step.


> 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*.

By what law?  What illegal thing is being done?  Will you tell us, or should
Gido consider filing suit against you for slander for claiming he does illegal
things, as you threatened to do to us repeatedly when we merely *questioned* you
*privately* about an activity?  Simply noting we were uneasy with the situation,
or remembered things differently than you did, was enough to trigger you
threatening us.  Yet here you explicitly accuse others, with no foundation to
the claim...  Again, you do things you would find objectionable when done to
you.  Hypocrite.


> 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.

This is the third time you've made such a claim.  Yet you're still here.  Third
time's a charm?


-Woody14619

PS: No need to reply with a "F**K [you|off|yourself]" private e-mail.  It's
implied really.  Not that saying it will prevent you from doing so.  Or that
you'll even read this far to see it until after you've sent it...  And yes, I'll
laugh when it arrives, as I know it will.