@yodude no harm no foul. I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at, didn't take it bad though


@benny I don't think I've seen it answered

@qgil I agree, I think that all ITT members should be grandfathered in (providing they meet the karma requirement). I also think a single login would go a long way to helping this.

However, I am not sure if the single login issues can be completed in time. As it currently stands, there are seperate logins. Also, per the last referendum (that I quoted) karma and a maemo.org login are requirements. Unless a new referendum is voted on gradfathering ITT members, they could potentially left out. I thought it sensible to recommend registering at maemo.org now just to be safe.

Perhaps now that the merge has occurred, it is time to revisit the council charter or policies and update them to better reflect the current reality. At least another referendum should be put forth and voted on now as opposed to later to permit ITT members to vote.

@all This was an issue that bothered me and unlike the theme problems (beyond my skills to create/maintain a theme, I also disagree that is the best solution), this was something that I could do.

Time for a vote.

Rookie of the Year: lemmyslender

We already did... Why didn't you?

Are you talking about the last maemo.org Community Council elections? If so, I did vote. And I'm encouraged by the results. Otherwise, I'm too slow and your post went over my head.

Thank you, thank you. Where's the podium? First and foremost I'd like to thank........


Anyway thanks to whoever stuck it. I'm honored it was deemed worthy.

Thanks for this thread!

I think it is very important that the maximum number of people vote in this election, and I think there should be a strong list of candidates, too.

However, this is important: if you think the council is a governing body in any way, you're wrong. Just in case you didn't see it over in the other thread, here's a post about the council.

Damn, and I was really hoping for a spot on the supreme court!

Qole,

I understand that the council has no authority. This is different than having no power. Much like having a high post count is sometimes connected with experience, being identified as a council member can sometimes be connected with experience, respect, and authority.

By virtue of being voted onto the council (albeit by a low number) by community members, this implies that a council member has experience, dedication, respect, admiration, etc of (at least some) of the community. I don't believe a newcommer with no history in the community would get voted onto the council. Any new member of the community must assume you were voted onto the council for a reason. As such, any communication from a council member may (by default) carry more weight and thusly more "power" than a "regular" community member.

Case in point, qgil (I believe) at times has difficulty shedding his "employee of Nokia" persona. Not through any fault of his, it is just human nature to let the fact he is a Nokia employee color our perception of his comments and opinions.

If the council would like to shed some of the unintended influence on the community (particularly new members), I think that council members should drop their status from signature lines/titles.

I keep reading that the council is only there to facilitate. If this is true, there is no need to advertise status. A simple check of the council wiki pages would let interested parties know who to contact. if they feel they need help.

Bottom line, the council has power, whether intended or not, whether wanted or not. Get multiple council members chiming in with the same view in a thread certianly disuades all but the most vocal from expousing differing opinions. If that's not a type of power.....

Agreed. And this is what makes the council work. Remember the council's purposes are:

1. to represent the community to Nokia (summit, debmaster, sprint process etc.)
2. to ensure that one part of the community knows what's happening in another.

And the priorities are in that order. Anyone can do the second point, but it's having the mandate from the community which makes the former possible.

Here I strongly disagree. I think it's important that everyone knows who represents them, and whom they can contact with issues.

The fact that some people are vocally upset by the behaviour of myself or Ryan (let's name names: we're big boys), or feel that the council isn't doing its job, can know that we are on the council. If we chose to stand again, knowing our involvement - for good or bad - allows people to make an informed choice.

Hmm, if they knew the council existed; if they knew where the wiki page was; if they could be bothered to check.

I partially agree. However, perhaps put yourself on the receiving end of a torrent of abuse when all you're trying to do is facilitate; and you might be able to imagine why people club together to explain the same things over and over again. As council members, part of the facilitation is to correct misunderstandings; and educate ill-informed speculation: we don't really have the luxury of sitting back and letting things career out of control.

I also think the number of threads in which what you're describing happens is really very small compared with the thousands of threads on here - but I admit that that's my impression, and would love to be proved wrong.

I thought it was a difficult process to become eligible to vote, and that perhaps that had an impact on the low voter turnout. For the record, I wouldn't say the the current council has any kind of mandate. The low numbers of voters suggest that either not many people felt it was worth voting for a council or it was too difficult to vote. Or I could be completely wrong.

Whatever the case, more voters = more of a mandate, better for the community. And that was my point in starting this thread.

I don't think that anyone suggested being a council member would be easy and everyone would be happy with what the council does (I wasn't here then, so maybe someone did ) As a council member, I would expect that some people would be (very) vocally unhappy with things that I helped to facilitate. That's part of the job. If I feel like that will bother me too much, perhaps I shouldn't be on the council. After all even if elected, nobody is holding a gun to my head forcing me to be on the council. I'm sure everyone would understand if a newly elected council member declined the honor as being more work than they were prepared to commit to.

I realize that it is a thankless job, and it is a job. All the council members deserve our thanks and gratitude for going above and beyond to try to help the community, whether we agree with what they are doing or not. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't disagree and debate decisions, even vocally/repeatedly at times.

Frankly, I think the council could do a better job of communication and I hope the last month or so was a great learning experience for the whole community in this regard.

I agree it should be easy to identify council members, but those members have to also realize that any comment they make will be looked at differently due to their position as a council member. It is hard to gain respect and very easy to lose it.

I was merely commenting that if the council wanted to reduce their perceived power (as is sort of implied by stating the council doesn't have any power), one way would be less advertising. Any interested member after all should be able to easily find/stumble across any one of the multiple council communication formats and then easily find more information on the council. Or, perhaps the council might run across a worthy project/idea and offer assistance. If the easiest way for a member to discover the council exists is through forum signatures/titles, I believe this constitutes a communication problem.

We'll never how many if any people have failed to comment because of council members joining together in a thread. All I can say is that I have chosen not to comment at times due to the feeling it was futile to try to get the council to see my (and others) point of view. If you are having to explain the same things over and over again, perhaps there is a problem (and it's not just someone being stubborn).