Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

I wasn't at the meeting, and I don't think that vote correctly reflects my opinion - there was certainly no vote from me to have Joerg_rw as part of an election for Hildon Foundation Board.

I don't think it matters any more as he has recently withdrawn from the election:
http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...1&postcount=86

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Actually that was the point - they were voting on whether or not his withdrawal was valid, given that he already accepted the nomination earlier.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

SD69,

Can you clarify what is your opinion on both joerg_rw being part of Board elections as well as part of Council till he decides to step down...

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

At this point, I leave the question of maemo.org council and interpretation of those rules to others. As to the Hildon Foundation Board, I don't want joerg_rw to be part of it.

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

thedead1440,
I won't and don't need to step down from council, since I've not officially been put into duty and role, and I clearly stated that I won't accept the nomination. This is the first vote I ever heard of where the candidates can't deny to accept election.

lma,
>> ...only yesterday tried to hold the elections hostage... <<
I'd demand clarification, if it wasn't so obviously nonsensical that it doesn't make any sense to even discuss this. If your BS claim of what I allegedly did would hold any truth, then obviously I have to have failed somehow since yesterday, since today obviously nothing is "held hostage". So what happened? Council decided they don't accept my withdrawal? And how T F is that holding the votes on hostage?

Ahh wait, it's been you who suggested I better p*ss off when I dare to withdraw (http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p...5&postcount=45), how sound a rationale ;-P (Actually many thanks for that, I took it for what it been: the best suggestion of the last day, ivgalvez wasn't happy about my consequences I took just in your sense.)
Almost as sound a rationale as SD69 claiming I'd "abuse my position in council" that I just refused to accept. Honestly, you make my day, guys. Even without having to pay for a ticket to watch you.

For all of you who get so upset you obviously can't think straight anymore: Consider myself dead since yesterday, maybe that helps you to chill.

/j

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Sure, if it wasn't totally obvious I was referring specifically to

and

HTH, HAD

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Thanks, all my pleasure. I'd not want to be in a board where you are member. So the problem actually solved? naaah wait, you deliberately refused to accept my withdrawal. Now you have to live with the mess *you* (the [former?] council / board) created with your creative interpretation of election.rules. I guess that's a pretty good start for board, to shanghai candidates so you could hold a "proper" vote, just to kick those you shanghai'd, after you reached where you wanna get to.
LOL!

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Well, you are aware that extension of nomination period *might* have resulted in a real vote (actually, if fading council would follow election rules verbatim, it *must* result in real vote, since nothing else could solve a situation with 4 candidates), while SD69 refused to give a vote about council to you, the community? If you call my pushing for a real vote being held, well if you call that "taking it for hostage" then ... (/me searches for a dictionary he could wrap in nice colored paper and send it to lma. Honestly, you earned it, since you made me rethink if I could stand dealing with this idiocy for a full term)
*sigh*

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

@lma: joerg_rw has pointed out since then that this was, near as I can tell from his statements, something that council nominees had done in the past, to elongate elections. No election 'hostage-taking', certainly not on the level of his intent at least. Furthermore, he was only doing it for the council election - for which there was no rush to get the election done. In practice, only the board has to get elected as soon as possible.

@joerg_rw: SD69 just pointed out that, near as I can tell, he was not involved in the vote discussed, and that his vote got misrepresented? It sounds, given what he is saying, that he would've happily voted to accept your withdrawal, seeing as how he had no objection to it when linking to one of the posts where you stated that it happened. If we get this clarified correctly, doesn't that make the vote 2v2?

Because if I'm reading this line right:
(from the irc log woody linked to last page) , SD is SD69, correct?

If so, and he was actually in favor of accepting your resignation/withdrawal, then the vote was counted wrong. Without Jaffa's vote being counted, that's Woody/SD in favor of allowing withdrawal, Ivan/Niel against. 2v2, instead of 1v3. 'Hung jury'. And then we have the Jaffa vote for accepting withdrawal, which I didn't really get because he's not a councilmember, but woody did mention using him as a stand-in for Nokia rep:
And at that point balance is 3v2 in the other way.

That is of course if I understood SD69's position correctly?

Re: [Council] Maemo Elections (September 2012)
 

Mentalist, it doesn't make a difference, since nobody in council wants a vote. and what I blamed SD69 for was his actions yesterday, when he claimed I'd already be elected council member and thus impossibly can withdraw (since that would create more work for him, I guess). Anyway it's obvious that council gives a s**t about election rules, and they invent/bend/ignore them to all their liking, just to get their position established.
See ballots, there's obviously no problem at all with vote getting moot by delaying sending out ballots (again!!) past beginning of official voting period, and neither by postponing end of that voting period. But when there's a new candidate for council stepping up, it's all "BUT! BUT! THE **RULES**!!"