chemist | # 31 | 2012-06-26, 10:55 | Report

[/mod] As I said somewhere else before, the council should get loaners which they have to give to the next-gen-council... but on the other hand some of the council deserved taking part in this CA ralley (it is an award for past contributions), and who ever says again that voices didn't get out till after the winner-list should read maemo related channel-logs (IRC) and find me the dates for posting them here, sick of reading it.

Even if only few, there was concern about council deciding AND receiving from the first time it was mentioned on the mailing list.

The current council was elected from 7 which means that, although not usual, people without history or with bad-history will get elected so I do not agree with "If they are elected council they have good history in maemo already".

My 2c![mod]

I won't split this discussion in bits and pieces, I try to be around if you need further moderation.

---

Last edited by chemist; 2012-06-26 at 11:00.

gerbick | # 32 | 2012-06-26, 10:58 | Report

Did not state it was you. It was one of the other recipients, IIRC. However, even that is immaterial and will not alter the outcome.

If anything, some of the ruckus is about how some folks were selected whereas one of them hadn't even logged into this site since February or January or last year. There's other folks that had made questionable statements, some of them are still making questionable statements to other members; and that's the issue.

If the community lasts past the next 5 months, this will probably be the very last time anybody will get a device from Nokia. It's invariably going to be seen as a smash and grab by some.

I'd just rather hear reasonable statements as to some of the picks. Not all though. And not the ones that have been yelled about ad infinitum.

lma | # 33 | 2012-06-26, 11:08 | Report

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible argument. If you must express an opinion that some specific council members are "without history or with bad-history" then come out and say it, don't hide it behind some passive-aggressive mumbo jumbo about the number of candidates!

ZogG | # 34 | 2012-06-26, 11:13 | Report

he doesn't want to be person as i understand, and it's less important about who, it's more important that argument of council was elected is merit enuf. And just pointed out that it wasn't hard to pass election and i would add that 1 month of council (i even include the judging 3 weeks) is not past deeds.

e-yes | # 35 | 2012-06-26, 11:25 | Report

My biggest mistake is participation in unfair, dishonest COUNCIL AWARDS.

Damn you, coucils.

thedead1440 | # 36 | 2012-06-26, 11:43 | Report

The basic arguments can be summed up as such:
1) There was a clear case of conflict of interest. Not many users of the community follow mailing lists especially newer members to know about the discussion going on there. A few users via mailing list, the thread on TMO and IRC did express their reservations but the decision to be the judge and the contestant at the same time was not reversed.

This was one of the reasons woody did not self-nominate himself for the device award.

Till date, the Council has been defending their rights to the device but not apologizing for the conflict of interest nor are they mentioning how this can ever be avoided in the future.

2) Harmattan users saw how two prominent devs; itsnotabigtruck and e-yes were not awarded their devices but the devices were awarded to some lesser deserving members instead. What I and some others who have voiced out have felt is that we know this is surely the last place for those two devs to get their devices as their work is not sanctioned by Nokia hence they won't be able to get it from the other 75 devices quota.

To add insult to injury, although the awards were for past deeds, there were clearly members who received the devices who voiced out that they will NOT be developing for harmattan. We understand that's their choice but studying the recent situation where the existence of our community is uncertain for the devices to have been awarded to these members instead of the aforementioned two devs was unfair.

Still, we felt that if the Council stood by their decision, they should have not allocated 4/4 devices for themselves. SD69 obviously deserves the device the most in the Council but the other 3 Councillors should have been pragmatic and sent 2 of their devices to the two devs instead.

3) There were personal attacks by the Councillors on members due to these members taking the Councillors to task for for what we felt was unfairness and a huge conflict of interest.

I understand some of you felt that Arie or others were getting personal, their frustrations were being raised with every evading response given where no apology was forthcoming and the right to a device was emblished even further.

4) Some arguments from the Councillors were just trying to cover their backs such as we've already sent the list to qgill what can we do now? Everyone could read that qgill had said he hasnt had the list yet so no device has been sent out at the time of your response and our discussions. A weak argument that further strengthened some doubts about the personal greed of some Councillors.

5) Even after such a long discussion the Council simply refused to back down of their stance and older members of the Community came to back them partially. Members who said that lets move on as its looking bad for our community and they didn't object to the awards but to the process were thaked by some Councillors and cited later as proof of support! This is uncomprehensible that when some members are giving you face by supporting your decision but not your chosen process you don't get their point. An apology, a decision to make do the decision, promise not to repeat such mistakes etc but nothing happened.


I know I've written a very long post, its my longest ever, but I think this more or less summarises the main issues everyone has that have not been addressed till date by the Council.

Furthermore, even though we backed out of the old thread, Council repeated their disregard for members by posting in the Minutes thread about some TMO members going crazy in addition to Arie being singled out in IRC discussions between the Council.

Shouldn't the Council have let the matter rest instead of adding more fuel to the fire?

---

Last edited by thedead1440; 2012-06-26 at 12:04. Reason: typo

michaaa62 | # 37 | 2012-06-26, 12:05 | Report

The council members dedicate their free time to this community, each and everyone of them deserve the free device!!!
How come that many of those active in these troll-feeding threads never appear in any technical discussions???

ZogG | # 38 | 2012-06-26, 12:47 | Report

just read one post above you, you telling the same thing was told over and over again, while it was answered and got no followed response. If you repeat same thing few times it doesn't make it more or less true.

As well it's pitty we never got constructive full answer to posts like one above, when everything sumed up and explained, most we can get answeres to parts, but again if you look at parts you miss whole image and may get it wrong.

somedude | # 39 | 2012-06-26, 12:55 | Report

..........

Dave999 | # 40 | 2012-06-26, 13:12 | Report

What is your solution to this never ending story? Give all devices to me?

It's a conflict of interest. No what?

What are you after...