Yes, board has to sign responsible for such stuff and that's absolutely OK. When board doesn't like to pay the Datscha or the servers, they need to come up publicly with their concerns and have Council justify in community-public discussion what are the reasons and legitimations for asking for that stuff. When community decided that Council shall proceed with such servers or meet in that Datscha, then it's not up to Board to override such decision. What board can do is blocking the execution until after things got sorted (usually, but not always, depending on a few well known best practices aimed at minimizing unrecoverable damage). Worst case - when board doubts that Council acts in best interest and implicit order of community - this sorting needs a referendum about the question. Every significant and reasonable voice in community can call for such referendum, so also the board. Council has to obey and start a referendum when no other way to unanimously resolve the conflict can be found. And when the result of such referendum is still not acceptable for board, they are free to resign. They are not free to ignore the Community decision, no matter what reasons they might have. Once we had a red-button last resort when council starts acting rogue and for example doesn't initiate a referendum to sort conflicts, or when board starts acting rogue and simply ignores Community decision. It's another flaw of the e.V bylaws that not even something faintly similar was included in them.

Says who? An e.V. is free to have whatever rules in its bylaws that say they will act in accordance and following advice of $arbitrary_entity, for this the entity doesn't need to be integrated into the e.V. structures. You're making up stuff here that complicates matters for no good reason, and state it like you're owner of ultimate wisdom and truth. Also please avoid the misleading term "force into something" since that's not going to happen, ever. It's the e.V.'s bylaws that force the board to obey to Community and their representative Maemo Council, or at least they should, and I don't see why they can't. It's exactly the purpose of the board being a separate entity from Council to allow them to rethink and refuse to act immediately and slavishly when the rethinking results in some legal problems being detected, and start a conflict resolution process as sketched above.
That's no question at all. There is no room for any decisions made by a GA that are in conflict to what the Maemo Community asks for. That's exactly what, I already told you twice now, is your root problem.


/j

Probably for you, as long as you're not in a Board position and may only demand something from them. I promise that we'll never see Candidates for Board again then.

Says the one who dealt with this subject intensively and enlisted a lawyer for legal advice.

First, you write "following advice" while the rest of your post says "be ruled by". Sneaky.
Second, you're the one making up stuff here that complicates matters for no good reason. The purpose of the association is to give a home for our community and your approach is to exclude them (or their represenative entity respectively)... How sane is that?
Third, you're plain wrong. The autonomy of associations includes the right of self-determination of the Association. This means that the free will of the Association must be fundamentally guaranteed, and the independence of the Association can not entirely be deprived of. Statutory bonds that lead to a muzzling of the Association, because, for example, General Assembly resolutions are made dependent on third-party consent or even can be overruled by third-party decisions, are contrary to morality and are therefore null and void (again, by law).
Search for "Vereinsautonomie" and look out for the minimum limits.

complete BS. sorry I give up, you're evidently incapable to get your s**t sorted. You seem mentally inapt to understand the difference between somebody else forcing something on you and you by own will declaring you will work in best interest of that somebody. You also seem to think whenever you come up with a alegedly enforced by some obscure law restriction, this is sufficent justification to implement a flawed concept. The contrary is correct: when your design has such restrictions that do not allow you to implement a decent respect of the existing community, then YOUR CONCEPT IS WRONG, not the requirements I formulate. The community HAS a home, you're not the one to define a new community or a new home (which is basically the same in your concept)

farewell, it's futile to discuss with you.

That's already declared by becoming regular member. It's even more obvious when becoming director. And I'm definetely mentally inapt to understand why you question this. Anyway, that'd definetely be something that's achievable.

This is done in Bylaws § 4 (Membership):
And by having council as an entity of the eV.

Maemo Community is defined as electorate in Maemo Council rules How many times you need to read those words to finally understand that your definition of a pseudo community by membership in an e.V. is BS?

Quick reply...

The fights are funny (somewhat). Somebody else would be eating popcorn while listening to them. However, I am not a popcorn-consumer.

Some time ago, there were: Hildon Board, Hildon Board Council and Maemo Council. The two Councils merged only one and a half years ago. Yet, there are already voices proposing to merge the Council and the Board. Are we that short of people ready to be elected to the positions of so-called power - and actual responsibility? If so, then it's sad.

And only later, the two councils got merged. I do not even remember, already, what was the actual difference between the two Councils?..

Hildon Foundation Board was invented to replace a Nokia representative, right? And MC e.V. is replacement of HiFo? Yes, Maemo Community is becoming closer and closer to being self-ruling, but there needs, still, to be some separations of "powers". It's clear for anybody that Moderator of TMO is not equal to Admin of Server, they require different skill-set, so there should be no intention to push everything into one body?

For example, since #maemo-meeting is for Maemo Council, wouldn't it be appropriate to have a separate channel for the MC e.V. board? To make it easier to see difference in topics being handled by Board and Council?

Ah, here it is. #maemo-board. Dear members of the Board, could you please try to be on the channel when you can? You do not have to be here during holidays, or 24/7, but raising awareness about the channel, as one of the ways for community at large to communicate with the Board, would be great. You already recommend e.V.-regular-members to have an IRC nickname on Freenode, don't you?

Best wishes. I hope I wasn't too acidic. But it's time to do things, not to discuss "boundaries between Board and Council". When the Board and the Council will collide over who-does-what, then the boundaries will have to be defined, based on precedents, laws, traditions, rules, community response, and what-not. And hopefully, there will be Board (larger than two people), e.V. GA (no less than 1% of *.maemo.org members), and 5-member Council.

Arguing about boundaries between 3-member Council and 2-member Board, when Council election happening and Board election will happen soon, when more members should join e.V. to make sure GA is representative sample of so-called "passive members"... Ludicrous (imho).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Per aspera ad astra...

And confusing.
And scary (a lot).

I did not mention it earlier but this thread had been a contributing factor in my stepping down from this term MC candidacy. I am not into politics but I accepted my nomination because "somebody has to do it". Unfortunately, continuing fights like this make it clear that I had made a mistake.

People have different opinions on how things should be handled, what are the correct forms and procedures and so on.
That is perfectly OK, it would be boring indeed if all people thought alike, to have life and movement there needs to be opinions and discussion.

However, it is best to keep it so that even when people disagree on a particular point it never should get too personal, as then it is impossible to see the good things in other points your opponents might have.

Discussion is not something to be afraid of, not even heated discussion.

how i see things:

think of it like a free golf club, supported by donations.

The "community" is all the people who use the golf green.
The e.V general members are people who use the golf green and are interested in the continuing direction of the golf club.
The board is the governing body.

The council is there to represent the "community" interests ( The board and general members must also act in the interests of the community )

i think we should wait for things to settle after the e.V changes before making any decisions, but...

In my view, in the long run having a small body with power over the board and a way to execute that power on a regular basis is a bad idea and will result in a fractured, heated management structure that will hurt this community.

The bylaws and legal liability force the board to act in the interests of the community. the council did have a purpose back when Nokia was running things, but now things are very different. and i do not believe a "council" is needed, just look how most other similar entities (golf clubs for example...) run.

ps:
i have never understood the appeal of golf...

I was once shot at for comparing (T)MO to a club. Can't find it now (perhaps edited/deleted reply?), but the quote was, "This is not a club, this is a community!" Yeah, a huge difference