Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

I misunderstood. Would not do referendum about the Council because it works and there is no replacement entity to do its job yet - it is its responsibility to find its place within the eV structure if it wants to but it doesn't have to and it should be able to keep talking with the Board directly like it did before.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Absolutely!

I'd even go so far as to say it's MC e.V.'s resposibility to make sure Council can find its place within the e.V. structure. But I'm not the one to doubt that this was assured by MC e.V. statutes...

THIS is exactly one crucial point being subject to proposed referendum (see below).

With a Council within MC e.V., this is being granted. Exept for the "like it did before" part, since this time it's for real.
Today, communication between Board and Council is better than ever AFAIK.

~ ~ ~

If I was the one to set up a referendum, I'd put it something like this:

1) - Redefine Council roles (list them) and make sure despite all the confusion there is only 1 unified Council left (same approach as already seen ~2 years ago) which will be a body of MC e.V. Simple approach: define council work/duties and leave the rest for GA.

* considering the fact that by law, GA has to remain the ultimate power in an e.V., which entails:
- (re)electing Board (basically regular members' main duty)
- amanding Bylaws
- termination of the association

2) - Redefine Council roles (list them) and make sure Council will be a simple aggregation of interests instead of being part of a registered association. Council shall be detached from any corporation whatsoever. I am aware that in this case Council can't have a substantial word in regards to MC e.V. activities.

3) - I don't care about MC e.V. Simply leave Council as is, don't touch anything.

On a personal note, I don't really care much how those roles should exactly look like (anymore), as long as finally there'll be a broad, reasonable consensus.
Since THAT's what it's all about in a demoracy after all, isn't it?

MC e.V. admittedly may not exactly be democratic in regards to community and how it is or used to be represented by Council, but it has to be in regards to it's members, by law. No way around that, this is as much "All hail to the people" as you can ask for. And after thorough thought about it, I have to admit that it does make some sense that only those who give avowal shall have the last word. After all, it's not only good tradition that gave an e.V. the possibilities it has today, but also elucidation.

And to those notorious objection raisers: Please do raise your doubts and fears. Any good demoratic movement needs to bear an opposition which puts the finger to where it hurts. But also be aware of your possibilities, your influence by participation is just an application form away.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Win7 ehrm, now you are getting in over your head...

This is or at least was only about Council Election Rules - those need to be adapted to MCeV bylaws or we need to remove council from MCeV. Founding Council already accepted these bylaws iirc - just not sanctioned by the garage community.

Nothing about roles, this is about rUles. Council's duties beyond that are decided later if at all or already given by our bylaws.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

I have to object to this statement.
The thread title reads "[RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V"
And I believe first post is consistent with that.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Nope...

Is about bylaws, election rules - position towards MCeV and if council is even still necessary and not about what roles or duties council will have or had. Sorry that I have to disagree so bluntly but it is a real pain to see such discussions defocussing within 29 pages (just in this thread).

Put simple, accept MCeV with its bylaws or in this case legal requirement to have its authority within its General Assembly (which is a meeting of all members, not a status or group you can join) or do not accept it -> MCeV will adapt to remove the council from its bylaws (change some inner workings like who calls in meetings, holds elections and stuff). You may or may not add the option to abandon council but personally that is not an option I would even present.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Please recheck. IIRC at last I explicitly gave a conditional "YES" only valid when MCeV bylaws were compatible with council bylaws, as always been a requirement towards those who drafted the MCeV bylaws. I've been told the bylaws WERE COMPATIBLE and since I had doubts about that assurance being true, I explicitly bound my "yes" to that condition.

It should be obvious and common sense that not council rules need to adapt to MCeV rules, but the other way around. Fixing minor flaws in council rules wording (e.g. references to Nokia) is completely independant of this

BR
/jOERG

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

No roles without rules defining them I guess.
Basically, it's about taking responsibility and sharing duties.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Joerg, it is German Law you are talking about changing, good luck with that. It is either Council adapting and having limited powers within MCeV or not adapting and having no powers, you may reflect your choice in an upcoming referendum it seems.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

I'm not talking about changing *anything*, I'm talking about lies blantantly told into my face. And about me rejecting to surrender to those lies.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

So we are at it again. Bylaws have been made up without you being able to read them - in the shadows. As you are able to write I guess you are able to read too. It really breaks down to an actual minor detail, minor as at some point MCeV might even be bigger as the usual amount of votes as it is 1/4 already. If anybody wanted to overpower or exclude council somebody could have moved fwd in that direction at some point but didn't. So if this is really just about you being lied to. Move on already, you are not the only one being lied to! Words have been said, trust has been destroyed... Have fun, I'm out.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Rules are about how we are suppose to act.
Enforced by threats of punishment, and promises of reward.
Makes everyday interactions predictable and acceptable.

Roles define proper behavior for certain positions we hold.
Roles are regulated by rules.

How many was broken so far ?

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

thanks for this, it shows exactly the whole mess in all this. I have read the bylaws, that's why I didn't believe that the MCeV bylaws were compatible with council's, and I clearly stated that - nevertheless I have been belied at that they WERE COMPATIBLE and any possible problems COULD GET FIXED BY ADJUSTING MCeV BYLAWS LATER ON. I didn't contribute to the bylaws since I'm not obliged to and had no spare time to do so, and I clearly stated that but nevertheless always pointed at this problem.
Now you lie to me and others again, stating that council had already accepted the MCeV bylaws and thus change in own voting or whatever, everybody who wants to know the truth is welcome to e.g. read the protocol of that inaugural meeting of MCeV.

Foundation of a german e.V. been originally my suggestion since I was (and still am) convinced that german laws allow more liberties in formulating statutes that american laws did for the HiFo. Nevertheless I always pointed at the importance to take special care to incorporate the Maemo Council same way it actually was possible to integrate it into HiFo bylaws and proceedings.
Now the story you tell is we need that german e.V. since the HiFo can't accomplish what's needed, and yet obviously the way you set up the e.V is resulting in an inferior entity than HiFo regarding compatibility with maemo community. And when you're getting called out on it, you resort to ad hominem and bitching and lies.

I'm done with this, do whatever you want. Just stop spreading lies about my behavior and/or my statements and votes!

BR
jOERG

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

This aint leading nowhere, quite the opposite.
Time for MCeV to get moving - if HiFo allows, that is....

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

To end this is your exact wording from the founding meeting http://mg.pov.lt/maemo-meeting-irclo...03-18.log.html

This discussion is about said referendum. It had no impact on council and we said we could not have that - by doing that MCeV would separate councils into two again - and that is what we neither need nor like to happen.

Minutes of the meeting http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=92922 being signed without further note of that being said but it was and still is recognized. We heard you the first time 2nd rd 4th 5th ...Nth time also - so you call me out for lying about something we actually have public record for, public record as in IRC logs, published minutes and signed documents filed at court. Next time you try to pick on me take a topic there is no log of, like last time - don't even dare to reply to that with something else than a sane suggestion for a referendum phrasing!

Can we, please, move fwd in phrasing the referendum to get council out of limbo (again).

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Thank You !

10 chars

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

thanks for finally confirming - when not in intended meaning so nevertheless in actual quotes and statements. The rest... :-x

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Referendum suggestion:
Please vote Yes if you agree with the following changes to the Maemo Community Council election rules:

change § 4.1 Council Elections Subsection 6 from to and § 4.1 Council Elections Subsection 12 to As there is a typo (a missing sentence @12) in the original bylaws I just rewrote the whole thing. - bring on your suggestions please. To reduce actual confusion and misunderstanding we might just leave out the original text or we'd need to quote both - we should probably move or link the old election rules page to the bylaws for future reference.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

1) proposed change to § 4.1 Council Elections Subsection 6 : when nominating self for council must declare interest ...
- such as working for Nokia
+ such as working for a company involved in Maemo-related software development (option 1, your)
+ such as working for a company involved in Maemo-related software or hardware development (option 2, mine)

no problem with this change, i don't see why it needs a referendum, most people would simply agree

2) proposed change to § 4.1 Council Elections Subsection 12 : Changes to any of the above rules must be approved by...
- a referendum by everyone registered on garage (= all passive members)
+ general assembly meeting or passive members meeting (your option)

agreed with your option i think, because these rules are legally binding and any changes should be by people with an identity

this is a little worth a referendum because it's a politically significant change of peoples' rights

what? i found this, it is a document for council, it's not legally binding for eV - i do not see a reason to change this item

3) the rest of this discussion is odd, as mentioned before i wouldn't require all council members to join mcev while leaving its roles as is (including being elected by all registered eligible garage users) as if what it asks is illegal then the board can refuse to fullfill its requests anyway

so i am glad you posted your referendum version, it sets aside a lot of noise

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

I am missing the part about an undoubtful votum that there'll be only one unified Council after all which resides within MC e.V. and not in outlaw land. I believe this needs clarification since some people here claim that Council is just an aggregation of interests which shall never be servant to any kind of assiciation, but it's leader. 7 months and 30 pages later, this is considered "noise" (unless I misunderstood that part). Not exactly fast, but it shows there's hope...
Still, I'd prefer to be on the safe side and have some kind of avowal for MC e.V. in the referendum.

In MC e.V., the Bylaws (which are supperior to General Regulations) grant sovereignity over General Regulations to GA and Council election rules (§ 4.1) are part of that. This fact seems to be part of the critique for those claiming "compatibilty" issues. In order to make a referendum the *only* option to amand them, Council election rules would need to be seperated from General Regulations (just like there are Board Regulations). I have no objections to this, the only thing is, this can't be subject to a referendum, it requires a descission by GA, so persuade them and this may be resolved too. Why shouldn't community determine it's election procedure for its' representavive on it's own? You have my voice for that. ;)

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

how about: such as working for a company commercially interested in Maemo

Because it is written rule (Council Election Rules) to have a referendum (I do not like that word) to change said rules.

Everyone registered on garage (= all passive members) equals (as in is the very same as) Passive Members' Meeting (legal term)

That was discussed and not desired as no-one should be forced to join the MCeV to become council.

That does not change that GA can alter any of the regulations, be it Association Rules be it Board Regulations be it that we have to wear bow-ties for meetings.

I honestly do not get where the deal is with people "demanding" council be the very same as with Nokia and be THE untouchable whatever they think it is. Truth is, the community, us, we, been represented by this council but now the community, we, us, owns Maemo - so the reason to have a council is to leave the option to participate by representation instead of joining the association directly, so people can stay anonymous, trigger discussion with council which draws attention to their needs. Future talk: Council would then pick the right people from MCeV to move on the issue. As far as I am concerned anonymous should not be able to alter any rules not even council election rules, if they want them changed they can ask council about it and move up the ladder...

I'd maybe just give up on getting this sorted any time soon...

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Thank you for this rather concise wording and moving this forward. Yes, changing Council rules requires a referendum; Full stop. Said referendum is well overdue since many things still point at Nokia, which has not been a factual participant for a long while now.

I think part of that was more of a concern that it would be difficult for non-EU members to be actual members of the GA. Anonymity was one issue raised by a few people, but only a handful. Most in that camp were also fine with having limitations on their "absolute say" being gospel for retaining said anonymity, save maybe one.

This is where we disagree. Council rules are already alterable by the "passive members". I see why that's concerning, but also, so what? It won't impact the e.V. even if they did, since they have no legal standing within it.

Say the Council goes crazy and passes a referendum that promotes something illegal (like posting copyrighted material). The Board can halt the activity, as it should and legally can/must under German law. No matter what Council's "rules" say, they have no legal ground to enforce it. Just like when Nokia ran the show.

I can start a David Hasselhoff fan club, and make a rule that K.I.T.T. must appear in all of his future music videos. It won't impact him or his production staff, no matter how vocal our fan club is or how many there are of us. If the producers don't hold the rights to use that image, they simply can't, and won't.

If someone really wants to push an issue, that's what GA membership is all about. Put your name on the line, sign on for accepting part of the legal responsibility for it by being a member, and convince enough others to do the same and take legal responsibility for said action. Don't want to do that? Sucks to be you, because that's how the real world works.

This same argument (by the same people, I might add) is the main reason HiFo failed quite as spectacularly as it did. Several people wanted to have "absolute say", but almost none of them wanted to take on the legal responsibility/liability for those choices. That's why HiFo as yet to have a single Board member complete a full 2- year term without resigning, myself included.

I'm hoping the e.V. will do better, but so far... I'm seeing lots of the same patterns (and same rabble rousers).

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Well that is why you need an account at least... it is not that I care much about changing that, I am fine the way it is - just wanted to point out that I don't like the whole "anonymous" request towards MCeV, I am still not fine with not having proper verification of our members, in a soccer club, you know people as you meet them in person, but here we have 10k people most of them I never met AFK so I don't know how they look or if their name is their real name!

Yeah I am pretty close to suggest to remove council from MCeV for good, that would need some reorganization of things but well, as soon as HiFo hands over there is legal ground to act. Or maybe we have a referendum prepared just as simple as "Is it ok with you to integrate council election rules completely withing MCeV Association Rules!" first so we cut the discussion about if there are two councils once and for all.

I agree with most of your other contributions but I need to ask to stop calling GA a membership or refer to it as something you can sign up for. GA = General Assembly = Meeting of all regular members of an association. This is one thing I need to explain to people asking about MCeV every time like "Where is the application to join GA, I don't seem to find it only your MCeV application form, is that it?"

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

> I don't like the whole "anonymous" request towards MCeV

Council's requests are not legally binding, it's just a pack of anonymous people who were considered apt at keeping track of daily needs of the project. So I went through MCeV bylaws again to see which of them are legally binding.

7.5. The Board of Directors executes the Council's and General Assembly's rulings.

This is problematic. I would rewrite it as 'The Board of Directors executes the General Assembly's rulings and the Council's rulings but can refuse them for legal reasons'.

8.4, 8.5, 9.2, 10.2-10.6. elections of all kinds, organizing and chairing meetings including GA and passive members meetings.

If we suddenly don't want to trust an independent selected passive member with this, this can be rewritten to say that at least ONE member of council must be an active member responsible for these things on Council behalf.

12.4. Bylaws, which the Council is authorised to enact are governed by the Association Rules.

(What is "Association Rules"?) Obviously Council is not authorized to enact new rules in the MCeV bylaws. This line would probably have to be removed.

> Yeah I am pretty close to suggest to remove council from MCeV for good,

Per the above, I believe that either leaving things as is or having someone 'represent' the Council in eV (such as one Councilor who is an active eV member) would work.

> "Is it ok with you to integrate council election rules completely withing MCeV bylaws!"

No. This belongs to "12.2. The Board of Directors and the Council are authorised to enact internal regulations for themselves".

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

gryllida, thank you for confusing everybody...

for 7.5, do you really need to have this written there? Isn't it obvious? Also you may ad a 5 page list of what council may actually rule on... and so on...


8.4, 8.5, 9.2, 10.2-10.6. our regular members are as anonymous to me as our council, some even more!

12.4. why should it be removed, that is part of what they actually be able to do... (maybe we should change the word bylaws in that regard to "rules"... and either we have another language problem here but what I read sounds like you think these rules/regulations etc are to be setup in the future, the MCeV was registered at court last year, these are enacted 'articles/rules')

for the last bit:

MCeV bylaws are all of them, not a single one of them is called bylaws on its own, another confusion by a language that isn't as precise as needed in such case. Someone should probably make this clear on that wiki page as the set of 3 articles/regulations currently have two names on that page.

1. Articles of incorporation (that is what everybody refers to as bylaws it seems, should change that name to articles of association, sorry for the sloppy translation that was probably me)
2. Association Rules (in wiki as General Regulations, no idea why but can we stop calling things three different names?)
3. Board of Directors' Internal Regulations (short Board Regulations)

can we maybe just not use the word bylaws...?

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

You're right that there was a translation problem. I had interpreted bylaws as 'this big piece of writing on the signup for MCeV form' but they include 2 documents in addition to that.

> 8.4, 8.5, 9.2, 10.2-10.6. our regular members are as anonymous to me as our council, some even more!

"Council was elected by a bunch of anonymous people and I can't bear with its rulings which one random active member gave me. help!"

"Council was elected by a bunch of anonymous people and includes only anonymous people and I can't bear with its rulings. help!"

There is not much options here.

1) Leave council as is and accept rulings from a fully anonymous entity. (Somehow HiFo trusted that the passive members listing on website is not hijacked by sockpuppets and this option worked for it for years. ... This is what the current version of bylaws also has.)
2) Leave council as is but require one Councilor is an active member and files rulings on its behalf while they are still dubious because this active member was elected by a bunch of anonymous people.
3) ?? <your suggestion here>
4) ...
5) Limit council elections electorate to active members and require everyone on council is an active member (this option can be only after everyone shouts 'join MCeV!!!' for a week non-stop and falls over after everybody was already nagged about joining it as much as possible).
6) Stop accepting rulings from Council. Only accept rulings from GA.

Can we just write "upon the active members number reaching N, the next council election is done by the active members and all candidates are required to join as an active member", agree on some value of N, and do things the anonymous ad-hoc way before then?

I would say make participation in elections compulsory (100%, or require that at least 50% participate before the election is considered valid) for active members, and pick a value of N which is of the same order of magnitude as the usual number of people participating in an election.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Why are you trying to force council elections to be inside MCeV, the idea behind council is to have a rep for associated members so they should elect their own rep. (I was more about the rules not the election)

GA quorum is given with 2/3 iirc (read the rules please)

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

> Why are you trying to force council elections to be inside MCeV, the idea behind council is to have a rep for associated members so they should elect their own rep. (I was more about the rules not the election)
> 8.4, 8.5, 9.2, 10.2-10.6. our regular members are as anonymous to me as our council, some even more!

These two statements contradict. Either you want to execute rulings of a fully anonymous council or you don't. (The currently active version on wiki says that you do. I wanted to say the same but then saw "I don't like the whole 'anonymous' request towards MCeV" lines and tried to respond to that by suggesting that you trust 1 active member or force a change in council elections - both of these were not a thing I myself wanted but I thought I should offer them to resolve that quoted problem.)

I probably should not have interfered with this discussion. Sorry. I'm running low on reading comprehension resources, partly because of two language barriers involved (one yours and one mine with mine being more annoying).

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

OK, I'm apparently confused. And if I'm confused or misinformed about this while trying to follow it, imagine how confused others are. Don't forget that most of this info is in German, which many don't understand. I have about the German literacy of a 5 year old, so most of it is well above my reading level.

My understanding (which may be very wrong) was that any member of the MCeV legally has to submit information about themselves to prove they are a viable and unique human being.

My recollection was that this "proof of person-hood" was required to be a registered member of the GA and to run for an office. There was also confusion early on if one was required to be an EU citizen to hold office. Admittedly, I stopped following this before legal papers were filed, so understandings and such could have changed (and apparently did?)

Knowing what is and isn't true of the above would be good for this conversation I think, and it sounds like you and Win7Mac are the two most versed people on it (being deeply involved and native speakers).

IMHO: HiFo made a mistake attempting to integrate Council beyond acknowledging it and allowing a reciprocal reset button. Had I to do it over again, I would have had one small paragraph in the bylaws defining Council (pointing at it's existence legally), and stating as long as it exists and has a reciprocal rule, either can call for forced joint elections. End of Integration.

My big lesson learned from HiFo is that trying to incorporate any non-entity (that can't have legal standing or liability) into a legal framework is asking for trouble.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Not being native german speaker, I'll throw my tuppence in the ring anyway :p

It is required by law that a person applying for membership of MCeV presents sufficent proof-of-identity.
A registered & approved member of MCeV is automatically a member of GA, and thus has voting rights in the assembly.

T̶o̶ ̶h̶o̶l̶d̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶f̶f̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶M̶C̶e̶V̶ ̶B̶o̶a̶r̶d̶ ̶M̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶,̶ ̶a̶ ̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶a̶r̶i̶z̶e̶d̶ ̶I̶D̶ ̶d̶o̶c̶u̶m̶e̶n̶t̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶p̶r̶o̶v̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶(̶s̶)̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶a̶l̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶m̶a̶n̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶a̶n̶ ̶E̶U̶ ̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶u̶n̶t̶r̶y̶.̶ ̶T̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶ ̶[/b]i̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶q̶u̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶b̶y̶ ̶l̶a̶w̶[/b]

To hold an office of MCeV Board, a member has to present a notarized ID documentation proving that (s)he is a citizen or legal resident of an EU member country. This again is required by law

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Ah. Thanks. I think I see where the issue is now?

My understanding was that GA was MCeV members that were not specifically officers. If GA is some super-set of members and non-members, then what defines a GA non-member? And do those non-members have voting rights?

If non-members == garage users, and voting rights in MCeV is extended to all GA then I see the issue (not dissimilar to HiFo's issue noted above). If not, then I need more clarification.

Also, a special note to MCeV and HiFo board members: Check your e-mail. There's a clock ticking that needs to be urgently addressed.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

It's simple really;

"GA" = "General Assembly", that's the meeting of the people that are registered members of the association. (and I used it also in the context of meaning the members in general, not just the meeting of the members which it actually refers to)

"Passive Members", that refers to all the people who have some intrest in Maemo but not enough to have desire to actually join the MCeV as members. (Pretty much everybody who is not member of GA bt has Garage account)

There is no special name for elected officials, except "Board Memeber" I guess.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

But "Board" does act on the rulings of council, limited to its area, council can change the Association Rules for now, so what Board does is it checks if it is valid and then enacts the new rules but that's about it.

As juice said, GA is the meeting of all registered members of MCeV. Currently we require only proof of identity from members of the board.

"Passive Members' Meeting" is all garage accounts (just to reduce the confusion, it is not all non-members, it is all garage accounts).

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Updated wiki page accordingly.

Re: [RFC] On the roles of Maemo Council and Maemo e.V.
 

Please see announcement of referendum 2015