By-Laws for Hildonfoundation

SD69 have updated bylaws document in order to publish it for community feedback. It is published here in full, for community members review, feedback and final acceptance.


This issue is blocker for several actions, including:
- Elections for next Council/Board of Directors, we'd like to use one single voting for both elections and Bylaws approval
- Legal entity, that will took place after elections.

It is by all means not a final document, and only a suggestion from the current Council for establising a legal entity to continue the Maemo society.

Therefore the feedback after review is necessary from community members and a final acceptance of the community is needed in order to establish a legal entity to be responsible for carrying out the Maemo.org infrastructure.

[RevisedHildonFoundationBylaws.docx][1]

[1]: http://static.maemo.org/static/d/da581e38ee2211e1b13df964af16d778d778_revisedhildonfoundationbylaws.docx

URL: http://maemo.org/community/council/by-laws_for_hildonfoundation/

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:37:01 -0000, Community Council: Niel Nielsen wrote:

> SD69 have updated bylaws document in order to publish it for
> community feedback. It is published here in full, for community
> members review, feedback and final acceptance.

Thank you!

> [RevisedHildonFoundationBylaws.docx][1]
> [1]: http://static.maemo.org/static/d/da581e38ee2211e1b13df964af16d778d778_revisedhildonfoundationbylaws.docx

I would like to suggest to use some non-proprietary format in the
future, especially for documents that talk about "open source" (BTW:
why not free software?).


Cheers,
gregor

--
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Funny van Dannen: Hauptstadt der Gefühle

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=01dG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:37:01 -0000, Community Council: Niel Nielsen wrote:

> Therefore the feedback after review is necessary from community
> members and a final acceptance of the community is needed in order
> to establish a legal entity to be responsible for carrying out the
> Maemo.org infrastructure.

Some thoughts:

1) General

I don't see the necessity for creating a foundation instead of using
the services of e.g. SPI [0] or the SF Conservancy [1] in the USA or
FFIS e.V. [2] in Europe. Has this been considered, and if yes, why
were these options discarded?

2) On the text of the by-laws draft

| The Foundation shall maintain a community with open membership
| having minimal criteria for membership

Which criteria? Shouldn't they be spelled out in the by-laws?

| No member may be removed from the community except for violating
| procedures and rules that the community shall subsequently adopt.

s/community/Foundation/ I guess.
(The "community" doesn't exist legally so removal or admission isn't
possible.)

| Within one year, the initial Board shall determine the criteria and
| method for the selection of subsequent Board of Directors.

I don't think that's a good idea. From my understanding of the nature
of by-laws, clarifying how officers are (s)elected is one of the
crucial things to have.


Thanks for your hard work on securing the future of maemo!


Cheers,
gregor


[0] http://spi-inc.org/
[1] http://sfconservancy.org/
[2] http://www.ffis.de/


--
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Peter Ratzenbeck: That Time Of Night

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=3vly
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:25 PM, gregor herrmann <
gregor+maemo@comodo.priv.at> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 19:37:01 -0000, Community Council: Niel Nielsen wrote:
>
> > Therefore the feedback after review is necessary from community
> > members and a final acceptance of the community is needed in order
> > to establish a legal entity to be responsible for carrying out the
> > Maemo.org infrastructure.
>
> Some thoughts:
>
> 1) General
>
> I don't see the necessity for creating a foundation instead of using
> the services of e.g. SPI [0] or the SF Conservancy [1] in the USA or
> FFIS e.V. [2] in Europe. Has this been considered, and if yes, why
> were these options discarded?
>

SF Conservancy was approached. They were discouraged by the number of
closed source packages in maemo. SPI requires a referral and we might
approach them if we have one. To my knowledge, FFIS e.V. has not been
approached.


>
> 2) On the text of the by-laws draft
>
> | The Foundation shall maintain a community with open membership
> | having minimal criteria for membership
>
> Which criteria? Shouldn't they be spelled out in the by-laws?
>

The criteria for community membership should not be in the by-laws. This
is somewhat like stating what membership fees (which we probably will never
have) should be, which should never be made inflexible by stating them in
the bylaws. The reason there is mention of the community is to try to show
that we are not trying to change maemo from what it is now.


>
> | No member may be removed from the community except for violating
> | procedures and rules that the community shall subsequently adopt.
>
> s/community/Foundation/ I guess.
> (The "community" doesn't exist legally so removal or admission isn't
> possible.)
>
> Well, all of the bylaws apply once the Foundation is established. Again,
this is something to show that we are trying to be inclusive as we are now.
I don't object to taking these two sentences out of the bylaws.


> | Within one year, the initial Board shall determine the criteria and
> | method for the selection of subsequent Board of Directors.
>
> I don't think that's a good idea. From my understanding of the nature
> of by-laws, clarifying how officers are (s)elected is one of the
> crucial things to have.
>
>
> Sure. Do you have a proposal? This is one of those catch 22 issues
implied by your previous query - how do we select the initial Board for an
organization that doesn't exist yet? I'll add to that - how do we allow
for having someone from Nokia or Jolla on the Board (if we want to do that)?


> Thanks for your hard work on securing the future of maemo!
>
>
Rob (SD69)

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:30:07 -0400, robert bauer wrote:

Thanks for your quick reply!

> > I don't see the necessity for creating a foundation instead of using
> > the services of e.g. SPI [0] or the SF Conservancy [1] in the USA or
> > FFIS e.V. [2] in Europe. Has this been considered, and if yes, why
> > were these options discarded?
> SF Conservancy was approached. They were discouraged by the number of
> closed source packages in maemo. SPI requires a referral and we might
> approach them if we have one. To my knowledge, FFIS e.V. has not been
> approached.

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "referral" here; my
understanding of the process (from reading [0] and watching SPI's day
to day work) is that after an informal request one of the directors
acts as a sponsor for an application, which means that they then lead
the formal process.

If there is interest in the maemo community to explore the SPI
option, a short mail to board@spi-inc.org might be a simple first
step.

[0] http://spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/

> > | The Foundation shall maintain a community with open membership
> > | having minimal criteria for membership
> > Which criteria? Shouldn't they be spelled out in the by-laws?
> The criteria for community membership should not be in the by-laws. This
> is somewhat like stating what membership fees (which we probably will never
> have) should be, which should never be made inflexible by stating them in
> the bylaws. The reason there is mention of the community is to try to show
> that we are not trying to change maemo from what it is now.

I see, then I misunderstood this sentence.

> > | No member may be removed from the community except for violating
> > | procedures and rules that the community shall subsequently adopt.
> > s/community/Foundation/ I guess.
> > (The "community" doesn't exist legally so removal or admission isn't
> > possible.)
> Well, all of the bylaws apply once the Foundation is established. Again,
> this is something to show that we are trying to be inclusive as we are now.
> I don't object to taking these two sentences out of the bylaws.

Or maybe clarified like you did in your mail? Like saying explicitly
that the Foundation is just the legal body serving the existing Maemo
Community?

> > | Within one year, the initial Board shall determine the criteria and
> > | method for the selection of subsequent Board of Directors.
> > I don't think that's a good idea. From my understanding of the nature
> > of by-laws, clarifying how officers are (s)elected is one of the
> > crucial things to have.
> Sure. Do you have a proposal? This is one of those catch 22 issues
> implied by your previous query - how do we select the initial Board for an
> organization that doesn't exist yet? I'll add to that - how do we allow
> for having someone from Nokia or Jolla on the Board (if we want to do that)?

Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
Couldn't we just say
- the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of
incorporation
- the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed
later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections
now?


Thanks again,
gregor

--
.''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Tina Turner: Way Of The World

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJQOQh8AAoJELs6aAGGSaoGTXcQALpdX2XW/CmupAsbQYdgDkjN
BywztueCirBPDlQ67z2+1MJGBuV/7icUYoQ57zVZBdUEPsNd6f7tU6gUo5MCBq9W
hYEOXE5UDsZDcnVAGOxmE9XHWtEhRQDLNl4U3JihA9ViUgdyWfTsrNgHje2fXGAz
RBja6ILsLrXrBR6VozxxsUrQE6qmS8Lqn2R0t2ZaQbScb2nP4/dUxWMSUHQG57P2
m0+PDAm5rjs1yKwB6bqimE1uwiv4LAdqDOKPtlAdRpLGXD35na8nBVtVMbJUbav3
K7HVdBDTKwbsYPZ2j6cKj0l+o2OIvbAFqty0fJrYWaTJZ7G8+XG8wfuZX6OESdsq
OzpEAzQWzJs15DtDng3LGSvzClfxnRSKDXhhdkBqxckl2xwR9mJ2PvpBychrsIzt
kYtjrHAOT4wbnuyeEZ6sRo4QIYeZ7wdDhHycFozU3wEWTFka8IlMBvg8TD2MVfFY
ixRuk8I5vY2A4E6IFAM+WxDzABJMC0uhAmYLC1CqeD4gOpYJisxTi8hqjj4Doj2+
0xdmTjqI/QzYVkhJ2TGcrmQ2Ou1ixz5Qgi6M+ZnZLRJv14sg02Z1x841lMZ5yiqs
SUDpdF5fG7UOnQrj/h9FL4m7soMOSh0KhmGH7sz2xrvJzfTeMqMTFdln2ekYSGWk
1VJTUD/z29uPrIRXtyzr
=5EHm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2012/8/25, gregor herrmann <gregor+maemo@comodo.priv.at>:

>
> Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
> Couldn't we just say
> - the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of
> incorporation
> - the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed
> later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections
> now?

Can't be done this way. Board have very much "elevated permissions"
relatively to what Council is allowed to do now, and such change in
rules require referendum, via current Council statute.

OTOH, we can't just put it as "accepting bylaws is equal to accepting
current Council as Board of Directors", because many people might like
to accept bylaws, but at the same time, to give such "elevated
permissions" to other people.

Due to this, IMO, referendum for bylaws *and* separate election for
Board of Directors is required.

/Estel

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM, gregor herrmann <
gregor+maemo@comodo.priv.at> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:30:07 -0400, robert bauer wrote:
>
> Thanks for your quick reply!
>
> > > I don't see the necessity for creating a foundation instead of using
> > > the services of e.g. SPI [0] or the SF Conservancy [1] in the USA or
> > > FFIS e.V. [2] in Europe. Has this been considered, and if yes, why
> > > were these options discarded?
> > SF Conservancy was approached. They were discouraged by the number of
> > closed source packages in maemo. SPI requires a referral and we might
> > approach them if we have one. To my knowledge, FFIS e.V. has not been
> > approached.
>
> I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "referral" here; my
> understanding of the process (from reading [0] and watching SPI's day
> to day work) is that after an informal request one of the directors
> acts as a sponsor for an application, which means that they then lead
> the formal process.
>

I stand corrected - sponsor needed for SPI rather than referral.


>
> If there is interest in the maemo community to explore the SPI
> option, a short mail to board@spi-inc.org might be a simple first
> step.
>
> [0] http://spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
>
>
> > > | Within one year, the initial Board shall determine the criteria and
> > > | method for the selection of subsequent Board of Directors.
> > > I don't think that's a good idea. From my understanding of the nature
> > > of by-laws, clarifying how officers are (s)elected is one of the
> > > crucial things to have.
> > Sure. Do you have a proposal? This is one of those catch 22 issues
> > implied by your previous query - how do we select the initial Board for
> an
> > organization that doesn't exist yet? I'll add to that - how do we allow
> > for having someone from Nokia or Jolla on the Board (if we want to do
> that)?
>
> Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
> Couldn't we just say
> - the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of
> incorporation
> - the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed
> later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections
> now?
>
> The current Council has already discussed these two options. Good to see
you mention them.


>
> Thanks again,
> gregor
>
> --
> .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key
> 0xBB3A68018649AA06
> : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -
> http://www.debian.org/
> `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation
> Europe
> `- NP: Tina Turner: Way Of The World
>

Nieldk, is it possible for you to edit the post in TMO to provide a version
of the document in PDF instead of docx? With my user I'm not able to edit
it.


2012/8/26 robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com>

>
>
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM, gregor herrmann <
> gregor+maemo@comodo.priv.at> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:30:07 -0400, robert bauer wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for your quick reply!
>>
>> > > I don't see the necessity for creating a foundation instead of using
>> > > the services of e.g. SPI [0] or the SF Conservancy [1] in the USA or
>> > > FFIS e.V. [2] in Europe. Has this been considered, and if yes, why
>> > > were these options discarded?
>> > SF Conservancy was approached. They were discouraged by the number of
>> > closed source packages in maemo. SPI requires a referral and we might
>> > approach them if we have one. To my knowledge, FFIS e.V. has not been
>> > approached.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "referral" here; my
>> understanding of the process (from reading [0] and watching SPI's day
>> to day work) is that after an informal request one of the directors
>> acts as a sponsor for an application, which means that they then lead
>> the formal process.
>>
>
> I stand corrected - sponsor needed for SPI rather than referral.
>
>
>>
>> If there is interest in the maemo community to explore the SPI
>> option, a short mail to board@spi-inc.org might be a simple first
>> step.
>>
>> [0] http://spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
>>
>>
>> > > | Within one year, the initial Board shall determine the criteria and
>> > > | method for the selection of subsequent Board of Directors.
>> > > I don't think that's a good idea. From my understanding of the nature
>> > > of by-laws, clarifying how officers are (s)elected is one of the
>> > > crucial things to have.
>> > Sure. Do you have a proposal? This is one of those catch 22 issues
>> > implied by your previous query - how do we select the initial Board for
>> an
>> > organization that doesn't exist yet? I'll add to that - how do we allow
>> > for having someone from Nokia or Jolla on the Board (if we want to do
>> that)?
>>
>> Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
>> Couldn't we just say
>> - the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of
>> incorporation
>> - the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed
>> later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections
>> now?
>>
>> The current Council has already discussed these two options. Good to see
> you mention them.
>
>
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> gregor
>>
>> --
>> .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key
>> 0xBB3A68018649AA06
>> : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -
>> http://www.debian.org/
>> `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation
>> Europe
>> `- NP: Tina Turner: Way Of The World
>>
>
>


--
Iván Gálvez Junquera

---- gregor herrmann <gregor+maemo@comodo.priv.at> wrote:
>If there is interest in the maemo community to explore the SPI
>option, a short mail to board@spi-inc.org might be a simple first
>step.

We looked at several options, but most of them were unable or unwilling to take on the role of acting as provider for some of the needed services. We're always open to alternatives, but we're also running out of time. Forming an entity now is a known quantity that we know will work. Even if we get a provider to help us, we'll still need a governing body to do the work for those services (which should not be Council, IMO).

>Or maybe clarified like you did in your mail? Like saying explicitly
>that the Foundation is just the legal body serving the existing Maemo
>Community?

While that's implied several places, and is clearly our intent, it may not be spelled out in that exact wording. Good catch. It's input like this that we need. :)

>Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
>Couldn't we just say
>- the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of incorporation

This has been discussed, and for the most part rejected for several reasons. One of the key reasons being that no one on Council wants that level of detail and responsibility to fall on Council. There was talk of Council being the interim Board between foundation and the first election, but there are technical, legal, and political reasons that's undesirable. As it stands, it looks as if the entity will be started just after the first election anyway, so an elected Board will pre-exist the foundation.

>- the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections now?

I suggested this as well, as a fall-back in case the first Board can not manage to accomplish it. One key item to note is that the Board cycle is annual, not semi-annual, which should give them more than enough time to get this task done. In reality, if there is no change before the first term ends, the default (AFAIK) would be to use the existing mechanism. So for all intents and purposes, it's already setup this way. But having it written out with clearer language to that effect is still a good idea, IMO.

Thanks again for your thoughtful feedback. I'm sure we will have a couple of cycles of this to get all the changes in before crunch time. All input and help is highly appreciated.

Yep, will do so this evening. No problem.

/Niel
On 27 Aug 2012 14:17, "Iván Gálvez Junquera" <ivgalvez@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nieldk, is it possible for you to edit the post in TMO to provide a
> version of the document in PDF instead of docx? With my user I'm not able
> to edit it.
>
>
> 2012/8/26 robert bauer <nybauer@gmail.com>
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:16 PM, gregor herrmann <
>> gregor+maemo@comodo.priv.at> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:30:07 -0400, robert bauer wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for your quick reply!
>>>
>>> > > I don't see the necessity for creating a foundation instead of using
>>> > > the services of e.g. SPI [0] or the SF Conservancy [1] in the USA or
>>> > > FFIS e.V. [2] in Europe. Has this been considered, and if yes, why
>>> > > were these options discarded?
>>> > SF Conservancy was approached. They were discouraged by the number of
>>> > closed source packages in maemo. SPI requires a referral and we might
>>> > approach them if we have one. To my knowledge, FFIS e.V. has not been
>>> > approached.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "referral" here; my
>>> understanding of the process (from reading [0] and watching SPI's day
>>> to day work) is that after an informal request one of the directors
>>> acts as a sponsor for an application, which means that they then lead
>>> the formal process.
>>>
>>
>> I stand corrected - sponsor needed for SPI rather than referral.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If there is interest in the maemo community to explore the SPI
>>> option, a short mail to board@spi-inc.org might be a simple first
>>> step.
>>>
>>> [0] http://spi-inc.org/projects/associated-project-howto/
>>>
>>>
>>> > > | Within one year, the initial Board shall determine the criteria and
>>> > > | method for the selection of subsequent Board of Directors.
>>> > > I don't think that's a good idea. From my understanding of the nature
>>> > > of by-laws, clarifying how officers are (s)elected is one of the
>>> > > crucial things to have.
>>> > Sure. Do you have a proposal? This is one of those catch 22 issues
>>> > implied by your previous query - how do we select the initial Board
>>> for an
>>> > organization that doesn't exist yet? I'll add to that - how do we
>>> allow
>>> > for having someone from Nokia or Jolla on the Board (if we want to do
>>> that)?
>>>
>>> Yup, this bootstrapping is not trivial :)
>>> Couldn't we just say
>>> - the initial board is the Community Council at the point in time of
>>> incorporation
>>> - the initial rules of election for the board (i.e. unless changed
>>> later via the membership) are the same as for Council elections
>>> now?
>>>
>>> The current Council has already discussed these two options. Good to
>> see you mention them.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>> gregor
>>>
>>> --
>>> .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key
>>> 0xBB3A68018649AA06
>>> : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer -
>>> http://www.debian.org/
>>> `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation
>>> Europe
>>> `- NP: Tina Turner: Way Of The World
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Iván Gálvez Junquera
>