Originally Posted by Texrat

I'm a click away from closing this thread.

Originally Posted by e-yes

.
You're funny in your attempts to shield dishonesty.

Originally Posted by misterc

long way to go in only 68 posts, huh?
but i'm glad you come to see my point, eventually

Originally Posted by woody14619

[...]
I never said I didn't understand your point. I said that others were calling for transparency while you called for opacity. I never said that I agreed or disagreed with either stance. In fact, I'm saying that figuring out when to use one vs the other is a fine balancing act. But then I think you know that already.

Originally Posted by ysss

@Estel: you can add my name to your list, for completeness sake.

Originally Posted by woody14619

Nice that you cite your reasons, but frankly, if someone is buying an N9 to run Android on it they're not generally going to care about or use Harmattan. If someone buys an N900 to work on Nemo, how does that help Fremantle, or CSSU, or... It may help sales of the device; but it generally doesn't help the Fremantle community. I think even the Harmattan community wouldn't agree on this point in unison.

Originally Posted by woody14619

Yet on that very page it states that the Community Awards is "unlike [the] other programs". One way it's unlike the others is that coding is not the focus, instead the focus is on "testers, helpers, hardware modders, contributing participants of brainstorms and so [on]". Tell me, how does a helper or hardware modder help reduce "missing apps"? They generally don't. They help other parts of the process, and build community, but they don't create missing apps.

Originally Posted by Estel

@don.edri
Of course, if a group of people want to fund device/money prizes for their champions, it's welcome with open hands by Council, and we would like to provide every help that they request. As long as they would like us "corrupt" to participate
---

As for Your summary - yes, it's kinda fair. Although, it's also fair to state, that (I'm repeating this 30 time, probably):

1. On April, community decided how CA will look, who will judge it, and how it will handle Councilors submitting for device, being judges at the same time. 100% of discussion participants were OK with it, and, ironically, I was the one, who proposed to make councilor ineligible, automatically. To my pleasant surprise, community decided to base awards on merit, not function.

2. On may, the same issue was mentioned on TMO, and only one person didn't appreciated idea of Councilors submitting to awards - geneven, in his one-liner post. furthermore, it was suggested and accepted (all in public), that Councilors submitting for devices, will take part in deciding about winners, but wouldn't vote for self (i.e. Estel won't vote for Estel, etc).

3. Later ON, draft for CA rules was announced on ML and TMO, without anyone protesting.

4. CA started, with announcement of rules via ML, TMO, News, Council Blog, IRC. It run for 3 weeks, including submissions of Councilors, all made during legal time. No one protested, and 80% of people (complaining now) submitted themselves = were aware of rules, accepted them, and haven't said single word about it or other submitters. List of such people include (but is not limited to) ZogG, INABT, e-yes...

5. CA ends. After results, few people start outcry, stating that *their* morality and "feeling" what is right or not is more important, than Community decisions made in April and May... And, that *their* morality should be forced upon everyone. Some of them demanded changing winners don_falcone, ZogG, some of them - like the latter, mentioned - though, that not-reading any Community channel for months is enough excuse for not protesting earlier. Some of them doesn't want to change result, but to promo themselves gerbrick.

there was also sad incident, when one Councilor - SD69 - who also submitted for CA and won device - suggested, that I might have did something "nasty" with my CA submissions, changed my mind etc. Of course, it is absolute nonsense and FUD - I've declared, that I'll submit from very beginning, and never changed my mind. FUD was cleared early enough, but some people, like don_falcone, like to stick with it, just due to personal problems with my writing style, and so goes on.

OTOH, it turned out that FUD released by SD69 was action on purpose, as it turned out - which saddens me very much - but it's different story, thing for fixing in Council internally, and I'm not going to write more about it.
---

don.edri, I don't know if You will agree with this, or not, but IMO, whole thing circulates about few (really, minority) people, that missed appropriate time for protest about rules (either, because they couldn't care less, or because their "champions" were not amongst winners), failed, to acknowledge that Community decided before current Councilors were elected, and, generally, failed to read and understand answers, at all.

I've tried - numerous times - to explain, kindly and civil, such points, and to discuss it - point by point - with ones that tend to not get a clue - like ZogG. Unfortunately, he wasn't interested, and when faced with meritocratic discussions about points (again, going 1 point at time, and explaining what is not clear), he just decided to run on TMO and remain in demagogic/sophism stance. Which, for one, I take as prime example of bad will.
---

Fortunately, most people seems to have gone through it, and focused on more productive things. Anyway, despite all grief, it was quite nice test, to see who is reasonable no matter of personal affiliations (I'm looking at don_falcone), and i'm sure that few people have their Candidates for next Council already, no matter what will happen in next 5 months. Well, double-win, after all

/Estel

You did the right thing, Estel, to reach out and guage the community opinion but it's a little unfair to suggest geneven is trying to create a mini-drama, it's just a viewpoint When you reach out to the mailing list you're only reaching out to a small subset of the TMO community. So ofcourse when you post things here you're gonna get a lot more viewpoints Some will agree, some will disagree, some will agree to disagree, and some will troll.. it's a way of life on any forum

I agree that councillors deserve to be eligible as anyone else in the community. But honestly I was a little surprised at the 100% claim cos Ive seen posts on here unhappy about it so, cos Im nosey, I had a quick look in the mailing list archive to get a feeling of the support you found there. From what I can see, there were 3 positive responses who agreed (quoted below), and the second of these was from from a councillor who is also applying.

Your original message - http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...ay/005259.html

Replies that mention whether council should be eligible or not:

http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...ay/005262.html
I don't see a problem with a council member getting a device if there are grounds for it
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...ay/005263.html
I don't see a problem with a council member getting a device either, but
they should not participate on the selection committee if they apply for
one.
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...ay/005264.html
I will say: it is perfectly reasonable to have the council members to get
one as a reward" for the work they will do (and most likely have already
done our they would not get elected).
So although there may indeed be "100% consensus", it appears to be 100% of 3 people out of the maemo.org community of 100s from a mailing list that is not particularly often used. So perhaps that's why you find it a more reasonable place

As i said, I feel councillors have the right to be eligible as anyone else, although at the same time I believe everyone should be judged on their merits - it's only fair. If you were to run a poll on TMO I'd say there'd be a lot of support for everyone to be eligible but (if you are basing your viewpoint on the thread you started in the mailing list) I don't feel you can take 3 positive responses as representative of the community as a whole though.

But i can understand it's tricky when you have people judging awards who are also eligible to apply for the same awards. It can be an emotive minefield and maybe you can't please everybody. So good luck with that But as long as the person on the council is not judging their own award application, and their application is judged fairly by the other council members, I don't see too much problem with that

Re other questions about criteria etc - don't want to sound harsh, but agree with ivgalvez here, everything is specified in announcement in the most clear way possible. call it autocratic, dictator'ish, tyranny or whatever, but here it is, and won't be changed - there was a ~month for discussion (and, even on TMO, traces to discussion on mailing list were presented on "Summer `12 Device Program" thread, started by qgil.

/Estel