It seems to be, that in general understanding, Hildon Foundation Council was to replace Maemo Community Council. I understand, that in your (as a lawyer) opinion, bylaws doesn't state that, so we have intention<->results errors.

How could it be handled in a way that Community expects (one Board and one Council), without breaking bylaws? Could it be workarounded by having same candidates for Maemo Community Council and Hildon Foundation Council with (hopefully) same people elected for both Council bodies?

Then, referendum on fix for bylaws (that would patch this mess with two councils) could be held.

Another possible scenario - electing Hildon Foundation Council, and 0 candidates for Maemo Community Council. Would it result in disbanding Maemo Community Council, and be followed by same referendum for updating Hildon Foundation Bylaws?
---

Note about the above - I'm asking about purely legal point of view. I know such "legal dance" may sound ridiculous, but I understand that SD69 - as a lawyer, and one of people responsible legally for Foundation's respect for law - may want to follow bylaws to the letter, not willing to respect "intentional spirit" (legally hard to prove, in case of troubles).

If I understand SD69's correctly, he haven't said that he like the dual-council thing - he is just stating how, in his opinion, our bylaws work in terms of law appropriate to Foundation.

If that's correct, then we have messed up bylaws. It doesn't matter whose fail it is at this point (not to mention, that bylaws were available for everyone to review for quite long time), the thing is how to fix this mess in most effective way.
---

another disclaimer - I'm not telling that I agree (or disagree) - with SD69's or Hildon Foundation's view on things - I'm just trying to fairly state point's presented, to allow civil and free-of-flamewars discussion between interested parties (current Council and HiFo).

Call it "volunteer moderation of discussion", if you want - keeping in mind, that it will work only as long, as everyone involved accept the idea I've presented in my last post (stating points in strictly informative manner, without any negative emotional attachments, and assuming that "People mean well"). If, for some reason, both or one of interested parties isn't interested in that attempt to rebuild cooperation, I will humbly hide where I came from

Still, i think that, lately, for some reasons, we've lost ability to even *talk* with each other at cooperative level about Board<->Council things, so I strongly encourage to, at least, try that "hard reset of attitude".
---

At this point, I would like to thank SD60 for answering exactly as I've requested (informatively, without accusations or blaming anyone). I've talked with joerg_rw (if I'm not wrong, head of tech staff), trying to encourage him into doing the same - I hope he will decide it's worth trying, too.

/Estel

// Edit to the above
Win7Mac, please, no flaming. "Update from Board" is regular way of official announcements in any Foundation managed by Boards. Keep in mind, that I haven't even seen its content - I just mean that there is nothing wrong in naming here, or using it as a way to announce Board's decisions.

Lets not discuss about form or things from the past (which doesn't lead anywhere), but stick to the merit and things we can do in $future_from_now, OK?

Also, I don't think it's so important in which Board<->Council thread civil discussion will happen, as long, as it happens at all. This thread seems to be most active, so I proposed it here. If TMO moderators feel like splitting topics, lets leave it to their discretion.