Open Letter from the Hildon Foundation Board to the Maemo Community

By Tim Samoff, chairman of the Hildon Foundation Board.

Dear Maemo Community,

As long-time supporters and contributors -- and, in all humility, quite
honored to be counted among all of you -- we, the inaugural Hildon
Foundation Board felt it necessary that we put forth an open, public
statement about how we feel the "Board" should be considered and engaged
with.

At this point, the first Board meeting minutes have been published for
public review. As we hope you'll see, it is nothing but the Maemo
Community's best interests that we are concerned with. In fact, the
entire reason for the Hildon Foundation to exist is so that the
community may continue with as few interruptions as possible. So, as
you read on, please keep this in mind.

A little history first...

Sometime in 2007 this community reached a tipping point. There were many
active users, new devices, new code, and a lot of questions pertaining
to the future of the [maemo.org][1] website and the community's relationship
with Nokia. Because of this, the idea to create a "community council" as
a way of fielding community issues and communicating them with Nokia was
proposed. Those of you who have been a part of this community for a
while will remember that the idea was widely agreed upon and the Maemo
Community Council was born.

This new entity, while totally unpaid and volunteer, ended up being an
amazingly efficient conduit between community matters and those at Nokia
who considered Maemo their charge. Both the community and Nokia
flourished because of this relational reorganization.

Fast-forward to the present...

Nokia is leaving the scene (figuratively, of course, as we hope that the
community still sees some Nokia faces here and there); the community is
in a bit of an identity crisis; the Council and Foundation Board
elections are rife with issues... The list could go on. But, regardless
of these problems, we now have a new phase of community life to forge.

Because of this, it is necessary to reevaluate how the community
operates and who is responsible for its continued operations.

Today's Maemo Community Council...

Thankfully, the new Maemo Community Council is made up of very dedicated
and trustworthy folks. And, as it has been since the Council's

inception, these are the people who will directly fend for the daily
life of our community. It is with gratitude that our community should
receive this new Council. Treat them respectfully and always give them
the benefit of the doubt. They are our dedicated and faithful guides.

The Hildon Foundation...

The Hildon Foundation and, specifically, the Foundation Board should be
viewed in quite a different light, though. It is the Hildon Foundation
that will oversee the transition of the Maemo Community away from Nokia

and into the hands of the community. Of course, the Foundation is also
very concerned with ongoing development within both the Mer and Nemo
projects, so facilitating their future is also quite important.


It is the Hildon Foundation that will administer such things as
community infrastructure, managing money needed to continue the
community, and general oversight of features and functionality in and

around the strata of the community. Understand that it is the
"Foundation Board" -- regardless of the individuals who actually occupy
the roles within -- who accept and administer responsibilities.

![cleardot.gif][2]

Because of this, it is the current Board's opinion that the relational
dynamic between the community, the Council, and the Board should remain
very similar to how they existed between the community, the Council, and
Nokia in past years. And, because of this, it is the Boards opinion
that the community should continue to communicate directly with the
Council, and not necessarily with the Board. (Hence, discussion forums
such as "Ask the Board" are quite inappropriate for these purposes as
they never existed between the community and Nokia.)

In Conclusion...

All of this being said, the Hildon Foundation Board will make every
attempt to run "business" in an open source manner. We will publish as
much of our meeting minutes as possible without violating any non
disclosure agreements. Likewise, we will make every attempt to respond
to community communication via the Maemo Community Council, especially
those things that pertain to community infrastructure and daily
operations. Lastly, we will remain active within the community as
regular community members.

Thank you...

Thank you for supporting this community. It is the reason why we who
choose to serve in more political capacities like the Community Council
and the Board. There is no other reason. We believe in this community.
We desire this community to succeed. We will do everything we can to
facilitate the growth of this community.

In service,
The Hildon Foundation Board

[1]: http://maemo.org
[2]: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif

URL: http://maemo.org/community/council/open_letter_from_the_hildon_foundation_board_to_the_maemo_community/

Dear all,

There is a mistake in the summary, the letter is written by Tim Samoff, but
the actual chairman of the foundation is Randall Arnold.

Regards

2012/11/8 Community Council: Ivan Galvez Junquera <council@maemo.org>

> By Tim Samoff, chairman of the Hildon Foundation Board.
>
> Dear Maemo Community,
>
> As long-time supporters and contributors -- and, in all humility, quite
> honored to be counted among all of you -- we, the inaugural Hildon
> Foundation Board felt it necessary that we put forth an open, public
> statement about how we feel the "Board" should be considered and engaged
> with.
>
> At this point, the first Board meeting minutes have been published for
> public review. As we hope you'll see, it is nothing but the Maemo
> Community's best interests that we are concerned with. In fact, the
> entire reason for the Hildon Foundation to exist is so that the
> community may continue with as few interruptions as possible. So, as
> you read on, please keep this in mind.
>
> A little history first...
>
> Sometime in 2007 this community reached a tipping point. There were many
> active users, new devices, new code, and a lot of questions pertaining
> to the future of the [maemo.org][1] website and the community's
> relationship
> with Nokia. Because of this, the idea to create a "community council" as
> a way of fielding community issues and communicating them with Nokia was
> proposed. Those of you who have been a part of this community for a
> while will remember that the idea was widely agreed upon and the Maemo
> Community Council was born.
>
> This new entity, while totally unpaid and volunteer, ended up being an
> amazingly efficient conduit between community matters and those at Nokia
> who considered Maemo their charge. Both the community and Nokia
> flourished because of this relational reorganization.
>
> Fast-forward to the present...
>
> Nokia is leaving the scene (figuratively, of course, as we hope that the
> community still sees some Nokia faces here and there); the community is
> in a bit of an identity crisis; the Council and Foundation Board
> elections are rife with issues... The list could go on. But, regardless
> of these problems, we now have a new phase of community life to forge.
>
> Because of this, it is necessary to reevaluate how the community
> operates and who is responsible for its continued operations.
>
> Today's Maemo Community Council...
>
> Thankfully, the new Maemo Community Council is made up of very dedicated
> and trustworthy folks. And, as it has been since the Council's
>
> inception, these are the people who will directly fend for the daily
> life of our community. It is with gratitude that our community should
> receive this new Council. Treat them respectfully and always give them
> the benefit of the doubt. They are our dedicated and faithful guides.
>
> The Hildon Foundation...
>
> The Hildon Foundation and, specifically, the Foundation Board should be
> viewed in quite a different light, though. It is the Hildon Foundation
> that will oversee the transition of the Maemo Community away from Nokia
>
> and into the hands of the community. Of course, the Foundation is also
> very concerned with ongoing development within both the Mer and Nemo
> projects, so facilitating their future is also quite important.
>
>
> It is the Hildon Foundation that will administer such things as
> community infrastructure, managing money needed to continue the
> community, and general oversight of features and functionality in and
>
> around the strata of the community. Understand that it is the
> "Foundation Board" -- regardless of the individuals who actually occupy
> the roles within -- who accept and administer responsibilities.
>
> ![cleardot.gif][2]
>
> Because of this, it is the current Board's opinion that the relational
> dynamic between the community, the Council, and the Board should remain
> very similar to how they existed between the community, the Council, and
> Nokia in past years. And, because of this, it is the Boards opinion
> that the community should continue to communicate directly with the
> Council, and not necessarily with the Board. (Hence, discussion forums
> such as "Ask the Board" are quite inappropriate for these purposes as
> they never existed between the community and Nokia.)
>
> In Conclusion...
>
> All of this being said, the Hildon Foundation Board will make every
> attempt to run "business" in an open source manner. We will publish as
> much of our meeting minutes as possible without violating any non
> disclosure agreements. Likewise, we will make every attempt to respond
> to community communication via the Maemo Community Council, especially
> those things that pertain to community infrastructure and daily
> operations. Lastly, we will remain active within the community as
> regular community members.
>
> Thank you...
>
> Thank you for supporting this community. It is the reason why we who
> choose to serve in more political capacities like the Community Council
> and the Board. There is no other reason. We believe in this community.
> We desire this community to succeed. We will do everything we can to
> facilitate the growth of this community.
>
> In service,
> The Hildon Foundation Board
>
> [1]: http://maemo.org
> [2]: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif
>
> URL:
> http://maemo.org/community/council/open_letter_from_the_hildon_foundation_board_to_the_maemo_community/
>



--
Iván Gálvez Junquera

2012/11/8, Community Council: Ivan Galvez Junquera <council@maemo.org>:
> By Tim Samoff, chairman of the Hildon Foundation Board.

> Because of this, it is the current Board's opinion that the relational
> dynamic between the community, the Council, and the Board should remain
> very similar to how they existed between the community, the Council, and
> Nokia in past years. And, because of this, it is the Boards opinion
> that the community should continue to communicate directly with the
> Council, and not necessarily with the Board. (Hence, discussion forums
> such as "Ask the Board" are quite inappropriate for these purposes as
> they never existed between the community and Nokia.)

Thank you for your letter, Tim.

Is there any particular rationale (other than historical comparison to
Nokia->Council->community), for avoiding direct communication between
Board and Community, and using Council as a proxy between those two?

I'm quite concerned, as it seems that view on effectiveness of
Council<->Nokia cooperation wasn't always positive (or, more
precisely, was *rarely* seen as acting as it should).

Cheers,
/Estel

On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Piotr Jawidzyk <twilight312@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2012/11/8, Community Council: Ivan Galvez Junquera <council@maemo.org>:
>> By Tim Samoff, chairman of the Hildon Foundation Board.
>
>> Because of this, it is the current Board's opinion that the relational
>> dynamic between the community, the Council, and the Board should remain
>> very similar to how they existed between the community, the Council, and
>> Nokia in past years. And, because of this, it is the Boards opinion
>> that the community should continue to communicate directly with the
>> Council, and not necessarily with the Board. (Hence, discussion forums
>> such as "Ask the Board" are quite inappropriate for these purposes as
>> they never existed between the community and Nokia.)
>
> Thank you for your letter, Tim.
>
> Is there any particular rationale (other than historical comparison to
> Nokia->Council->community), for avoiding direct communication between
> Board and Community, and using Council as a proxy between those two?

Clear roles of responsibility and avoiding overlap of purpose?

> I'm quite concerned, as it seems that view on effectiveness of
> Council<->Nokia cooperation wasn't always positive (or, more
> precisely, was *rarely* seen as acting as it should).

In relation to what? Nokia's management of the site infrastructure (which is the Nokia role that the Hildon Foundation is taking ownership of) was just fine communication-wise. The communication issues with Nokia were related to the platform, bug handling, and strategy. None of these topics are relevant to the Hildon Foundation.

On pią 09 lis 2012 10:23:07 CET, Ryan Abel <rabelg5@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Piotr Jawidzyk <twilight312@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2012/11/8, Community Council: Ivan Galvez Junquera <council@maemo.org>:
> > > By Tim Samoff, chairman of the Hildon Foundation Board.
> >
> > > Because of this, it is the current Board's opinion that the
> > > relational dynamic between the community, the Council, and the Board
> > > should remain very similar to how they existed between the
> > > community, the Council, and Nokia in past years. And, because of
> > > this, it is the Boards opinion that the community should continue to
> > > communicate directly with the Council, and not necessarily with the
> > > Board. (Hence, discussion forums such as "Ask the Board" are quite
> > > inappropriate for these purposes as they never existed between the
> > > community and Nokia.)
> >
> > Thank you for your letter, Tim.
> >
> > Is there any particular rationale (other than historical comparison to
> > Nokia->Council->community), for avoiding direct communication between
> > Board and Community, and using Council as a proxy between those two?
>
> Clear roles of responsibility and avoiding overlap of purpose?

Following this line of thinking, we can reverse it into necessarity of two bodies existence - if they can overlap own purpose, do we really need Council in addition to Board? Generally, Community's (lack of) interest in candidating for/electing Council seems to suggest otherwise.
---

But, as stated in original question, I would like to know Board's opinion on rationale for proxyfying Communication with Community through Council. I hope, that there are good reasons, other than "to assign some job to Council, thus justify its existence in Foundation's times".

All after all, I'm sure that asking questions and presenting isn't crime in Maemo's mailing list (yet).

/Estel

Can we please, for the love of all things holy, stop beating this dead horse?

One of the larger things Council can do, frankly, is filter out the noise. The Board is not there to solve misc petty community arguments or moderation disputes. It's there to handle transitioning the infrastructure and keeping the servers and related systems up and running. Doubly so right now as the clock ticks down, they shouldn't have to worry about things irrelevant to their immediate and essential tasks.

Council still has quite a vital role to play in gauging the direction and pulse of the community, and clearly keeping their focus on that community. Having just ended my term as Council, I can tell you that in itself was almost like having a second job. To ask one set of people to do both roles is asking them to take on two jobs, strictly as a volunteer, on top of what they do for a living.

Maybe in a year, if things calm down and stabilize enough on the infrastructure side, we may decide as a community that we no longer need to split those roles. I think most would be fine with that. But right now, combining those roles would guarantee nobody would run for the position(s) out of sheer lack of time and energy.

-Craig



---- "twilight312@gmail.com" <twilight312@gmail.com> wrote:

Following this line of thinking, we can reverse it into necessarity of two bodies existence - if they can overlap own purpose, do we really need Council in addition to Board?

On sob 10 lis 2012 03:12:49 CET, Craig Woodward <woody@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

> Can we please, for the love of all things holy, stop beating this dead
> horse?

Hope you don't mean Council or maemo...

> One of the larger things Council can do, frankly, is filter out the
> noise.  The Board is not there to solve misc petty community arguments
> or moderation disputes.

Sure tjing - still, it doesn't mean, that Board need a censor in the middle. Council, for example, also isn't meant to solve moderation disputes about, let's say, TMO - it doesn't mean that we need sub-council to filter noise coming at Council...

Thinking like that, we can build useless ladder of buerocratic structures, that doesn't have any purpose, other than justifying own existence. Which seems like already started, with Council "filter".

As suggested month or two ago, we don't have so much volounteers, to "assign" them not importtant roles. In times of Foundation and Board, no one was able - up to date - to highlight any important factor justifying Council existence, other than (rather not-so-important) "noise filter".

What is even more strange, not even things like lack of interest in Council from Community side (forcing Board candidates to double-candidate for Council, to let it form at all - which defeats the "noise filter" rationale!) made "party leaders" re-think merit of keeping Council.
---

Not that Community's doubts really matter - sadly, "leadership" will do what they want, and no one is putting that into doubt. Still, as said earlier, asking questions and presenting opinions/doubts isn't crime on mailing list (yet). Wouldn't be surprised, if last one is going to change for worse, soon, though.

/Estel

On 11/10/2012 08:40 AM, twilight312@gmail.com wrote:
...
>
> Not that Community's doubts really matter - sadly, "leadership" will do
> what they want, and no one is putting that into doubt. Still, as said
> earlier, asking questions and presenting opinions/doubts isn't crime on
> mailing list (yet). Wouldn't be surprised, if last one is going to
> change for worse, soon, though.
>

First of all, board and council are as much part of the community as you
are.
Secondly, apparently no one else in the community (except you) has
objections against what the board/council is doing. Which is a very good
sign that they are in fact doing what the community wants.

Asking questions is completely legit. You asked a question. You got the
answer.
This is not about asking the very same question over and over again
until the answer changes to something that suits you more.
I am very happy that board and council are well organized and reply
uniformly.

Personally, I am also very happy that we have volunteers who take care
of important things during their free time.

Please stop implying that there was some kind of dictatorship. This is
simply not true (full stop).
Also please stop to imply that you are speaking for "the community". You
are definitely not speaking for me.



Kind regards,

Ruediger



PS: Please excuse the noise.



> /Estel
>
>
>
>


--
http://ruedigergad.com

With all due respect, I don't feel like receiving answer for my (kind) question, about rationale for proxyfing communication between Board and Community, through Council (other than historical tradition of Nokia->Council->Community, to filter "noise).

If it's only existing rationale, I accept it as answer, but it's very disappointing one, to say at least. Furthermore, question was directed to Board, and while I appreciate any imput from other people, I was interested in direct opinion of Board members.
---

I'm *not* implying that I speak for the Community - I speak for myself. What I implied, though, is that Community expressed extreme lack of interest in Council, by not carrying to even throw own names into hat, not to mention voting. Thread about Council election is full of ridicolous talks about who should submit, and then ask to *not* being voted, or who should withdrawn candidacy (or not) and when, to allow constructing Council at all - one, that wouldn't exist, without such tricks.

Honestly, the thing that happened around "democratic" election of Council would even offend Belarusian and Chinese democracy standards. It was pure joke, embarassing to witness, even as observer.

Given mentioned lack of *natural* interest from Community members to candidate for Council position, I feel justified to say, that Community wasn't interested in Council (lack of) election or existence, at all.
---

I'm not implying that anyone is doing "dictatorship" here - enen less the Board, that is formed by quite respectable people. Hoever, amount of agression, that simple questions bring, makes me wonder. It's not new thing, that "goverments" losing Community legitimations, tend to become more agressive and repressionistic.

Such thing is clearly visible @ TMO - few of my friends running hardware projects, that also lost faith in TMO being safe place to continue them (projects), are *afraid* to post info about place where they're moving with their ideas, due to risk of being opressed by rogue moderation. If something like this would happen a year ago, I would - myself - call them paranoic. Now, I understand it very well.

In years of Nokia paying bills, people were - many times - expressing their opinions against Nokia in much less civilized manner, that Council or Board was *ever* criticized. Now, even simply writing, that practice of candidating to Council and asking "people, don't vote for me" (instead of revoking own candidacy - to support creating Council, that shouldn't exist, due to lack of interest) is making jokes of democracy, result in being assigned ban on TMO.

Sure, all of this can be blamed on decomposition of TMO, in last days of its existence - and I hope, that there is no more to it. After all, it would be sad to conclude, that in times of Foundation, censorship, lack of freedom for expressing opinions, denial of witnessing any critic by "rulers" etc is becoming Maemo's standard, for upcoming A.D 2013.

Such "radicalisation of goverment" would, sadly, mean that we're spiralling down into oblivion, as history proven many times - in both micro- and macro- scale.
---

Thanks for reading this long letter. Thanks in advance for not reacting histericaly, agressively, or in any offensive manner. Yes, I understand, that by yesterday decret, TMO moderators are keeping "order" on mailing list too, and I will accept any ban on mailing list, for writing above (/harmless joke).

/Estel

On sob 10 lis 2012 10:32:16 CET, Ruediger Gad <r.c.g@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 11/10/2012 08:40 AM, twilight312@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >
> > Not that Community's doubts really matter - sadly, "leadership" will do
> > what they want, and no one is putting that into doubt. Still, as said
> > earlier, asking questions and presenting opinions/doubts isn't crime on
> > mailing list (yet). Wouldn't be surprised, if last one is going to
> > change for worse, soon, though.
> >
>
> First of all, board and council are as much part of the community as you
> are.
> Secondly, apparently no one else in the community (except you) has
> objections against what the board/council is doing. Which is a very good
> sign that they are in fact doing what the community wants.
>
> Asking questions is completely legit. You asked a question. You got the
> answer.
> This is not about asking the very same question over and over again
> until the answer changes to something that suits you more.
> I am very happy that board and council are well organized and reply
> uniformly.
>
> Personally, I am also very happy that we have volunteers who take care
> of important things during their free time.
>
> Please stop implying that there was some kind of dictatorship. This is
> simply not true (full stop).
> Also please stop to imply that you are speaking for "the community". You
> are definitely not speaking for me.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Ruediger
>
>
>
> PS: Please excuse the noise.
>
>
>
> > /Estel
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > maemo-community mailing list
> > maemo-community@maemo.org
> > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
> >
>
>
> --
> http://ruedigergad.com
>

I think this is a good example of answers you got above: it's pity but as
we have such kind of questions ( and i mean not question itself, but as was
told above one that keep coming and refuses to get any answer except one he
wants), the Council, and it doesn't matter how it's still pointless and
waste a time for Council too, need to handle those, so Board can have time
and opportunity to work on things that matter more and have more priority.

I see it as our community needs "kindergarten teachers", who would lead
them through first steps to understand what's really matter. And hopefully
with time, there would be more active and strong members in community
itself who would slowly replace Council and would be this filter for "any
pips" and "i know better" "question". I'm not saying we don't have those
members, but in my opinion they want less be involved in this
"kindergarten" matters. And as we only start the foundation and it's not
finally formed yet. And we need those levels, but as i said i think in time
those levels (mostly of importance and real things) would be evolved
naturally and then we would see if we still need Council or maybe it would
be replaces just by most active and contributing to community(not in
development, but management level) members. Or maybe we will never be
mature enough and Council will have this job. But for now as there is job
for Council, we need them!

ZogG


On 10 November 2012 12:36, twilight312@gmail.com <twilight312@gmail.com>wrote:

> **
>
> With all due respect, I don't feel like receiving answer for my (kind)
> question, about rationale for proxyfing communication between Board and
> Community, through Council (other than historical tradition of
> Nokia->Council->Community, to filter "noise).
>
> If it's only existing rationale, I accept it as answer, but it's very
> disappointing one, to say at least. Furthermore, question was directed to
> Board, and while I appreciate any imput from other people, I was interested
> in direct opinion of Board members.
> ---
>
> I'm *not* implying that I speak for the Community - I speak for myself.
> What I implied, though, is that Community expressed extreme lack of
> interest in Council, by not carrying to even throw own names into hat, not
> to mention voting. Thread about Council election is full of *ridicolous*talks about who should submit, and then ask to *not* being voted, or who
> should withdrawn candidacy (or not) and when, to allow constructing Council
> at all - one, that wouldn't exist, without such tricks.
>
> Honestly, the thing that happened around "democratic" election of Council
> would even offend Belarusian and Chinese democracy standards. It was pure
> joke, embarassing to witness, even as observer.
>
> Given mentioned lack of *natural* interest from Community members to
> candidate for Council position, I feel justified to say, that Community
> wasn't interested in Council (lack of) election or existence, at all.
> ---
>
> I'm not implying that anyone is doing "dictatorship" here - enen less the
> Board, that is formed by quite respectable people. Hoever, amount of
> agression, that simple questions bring, makes me wonder. It's not new
> thing, that "goverments" losing Community legitimations, tend to become
> more agressive and repressionistic.
>
> Such thing is clearly visible @ TMO - few of my friends running hardware
> projects, that also lost faith in TMO being safe place to continue them
> (projects), are *afraid* to post info about place where they're moving with
> their ideas, due to risk of being opressed by rogue moderation. If
> something like this would happen a year ago, I would - myself - call them
> paranoic. Now, I understand it very well.
>
> In years of Nokia paying bills, people were - many times - expressing
> their opinions against Nokia in much less civilized manner, that Council or
> Board was *ever* criticized. *Now, even simply writing, that practice of
> candidating to Council and asking "people, don't vote for me" (instead of
> revoking own candidacy - to support creating Council, that shouldn't exist,
> due to lack of interest)* is making jokes of democracy, result in being
> assigned *ban on TMO.*
>
> Sure, all of this can be blamed on decomposition of TMO, in last days of
> its existence - and I hope, that there is no more to it. After all, it
> would be sad to conclude, that in times of Foundation, censorship, lack of
> freedom for expressing opinions, denial of witnessing any critic by
> "rulers" etc is becoming Maemo's standard, for upcoming A.D 2013.
>
> Such "radicalisation of goverment" would, sadly, mean that we're
> spiralling down into oblivion, as history proven many times - in both
> micro- and macro- scale.
> ---
>
> Thanks for reading this long letter. Thanks in advance for not reacting
> histericaly, agressively, or in any offensive manner. Yes, I understand,
> that by yesterday decret, TMO moderators are keeping "order" on mailing
> list too, and I will accept any ban on mailing list, for writing above
> (/harmless joke).
>
> /Estel
>
> On sob 10 lis 2012 10:32:16 CET, Ruediger Gad <r.c.g@gmx.de> wrote:
>
> > On 11/10/2012 08:40 AM, twilight312@gmail.com wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > Not that Community's doubts really matter - sadly, "leadership" will
> do
> > > what they want, and no one is putting that into doubt. Still, as said
> > > earlier, asking questions and presenting opinions/doubts isn't crime
> on
> > > mailing list (yet). Wouldn't be surprised, if last one is going to
> > > change for worse, soon, though.
> > >
> >
> > First of all, board and council are as much part of the community as you
> > are.
> > Secondly, apparently no one else in the community (except you) has
> > objections against what the board/council is doing. Which is a very good
> > sign that they are in fact doing what the community wants.
> >
> > Asking questions is completely legit. You asked a question. You got the
> > answer.
> > This is not about asking the very same question over and over again
> > until the answer changes to something that suits you more.
> > I am very happy that board and council are well organized and reply
> > uniformly.
> >
> > Personally, I am also very happy that we have volunteers who take care
> > of important things during their free time.
> >
> > Please stop implying that there was some kind of dictatorship. This is
> > simply not true (full stop).
> > Also please stop to imply that you are speaking for "the community". You
> > are definitely not speaking for me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Ruediger
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: Please excuse the noise.
> >
> >
> >
> > > /Estel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > maemo-community mailing list
> > > maemo-community@maemo.org
> > > https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > http://ruedigergad.com
> >
>
>
>
>