[Board] Board Minutes For Meeting On February 17, 2013
Original Link: http://hildonfoundation.org/board-mi...ruary-17-2013/
Attending:
Finances (including bank account issues):
Nokia contract issues:
Appointing of new infrastructure maintenance positions:
Migration issues (including those questions brought up by Eero, copied below):
Board and Council relationship/dynamic:
Ubuntu:
Iván's resignation from the Board and Council:
Meeting concluded. |
Re: [Board] Board Minutes For Meeting On February 17, 2013
Quote:
SD69 came on the last Council meeting and reading from logs he said for Board meetings to visit: Quote:
As a Community member all I can see is a Council working their a*ses off to make things work and a Board that knows next to nothing technically but still interferes in things with road-blocks and for the primary objective of handling finances doing a poor job. Tell me where is the EU bank account or flattr for donations or the OVI account? Seems donations are not that required anymore since IPHH is a pretty good option but where was even one BoD on the donations thread to inform about it? It was left to joerg_rw to do so and I asked him why take so long and he showed me his task list and it seems the Board have been doing comparatively very little. A Donors wall that was last updated nearly a month ago! Wow you expect donations but don't update the Community on its status? The Board needs to remember you are elected to ensure the Community lives on by facilitating donations etc and NOT to be the new Nokia like some of you seem to be keen to follow. Why not solicit opinions yourself via TMO etc instead of pushing it to a clearly over-worked Council? Where is your thread on TMO or ML asking for opinions? Aren't your'll going to do the pay-outs if ever required or sign contracts? Where is the proper procedures that if maemo infra is migrated to OSUOSL, an American institution, all EU laws would be complied with and not infringed on since except for TMO all other infra is based in EU? One important edit: The Council or individual Councillors can be interacted with directly on IRC on #maemo-meeting etc so anybody can give their opinions to them but I ask Board where is your public channels except for an email address? I had to canvass the Council meeting logs to know about the Board's impeding meeting. Why aren't there public announcements if the meeting is public? Communication from Board needs to be improved pronto IMO... Also if the Board intends to send an open letter of sorts to Ubuntu or any other organization please consult with the Community as we all know how mangled the Jolla discussions became due to various factors. |
Re: [Board] Board Minutes For Meeting On February 17, 2013
Quote:
Edit: I agree there should be public announcement of Board meetings. The Board does not intend to contact Ubuntu at the present time. We intend for interested members of the community to do a technical and OSS assessment of the source code released on the 21st. |
Re: [Board] Board Minutes For Meeting On February 17, 2013
Rob is correct. The "private" meeting was unintentional, as it is a little hard to figure out how to use concert-oh (the servide that we use) in this regard. I know what to do now, though, so the next publicly announced meeting will be accessible. Sorry for any grief.
Tim |
Re: [Board] Board Minutes For Meeting On February 17, 2013
Its been 6 days from my last post here and the 2 remaining BoDs have responded only to my point of the meeting being private.
So a few more updates: - The Donor's Wall is still NOT updated. 21/01/13 was the last update; exactly more than a month ago. - There is still NO canvassing of opinions from the Community by the BoD regarding migration etc. Thank goodness for people like joerg_rw and Falk (warfare) who have put migration #2 in motion. - I'll link my post in Ivan's resignation thread here too so that the BoDs can respond centrally. - There is still no clarifications issued for posts in the "Open Letter to Jolla" threads whereby it was asked if and to what extent did the BoDs have communications with Jolla and/or its representatives prior to the open letter. - The last point I did some canvassing of information on my own and it turns out that the BoD were primarily responsible for fudging up talks with Jolla by acting big-headed and thinking they had a "Community" behind them who they could trade with Jolla in return for sponsorship. Jolla seem to have asked the BoD to be honest regarding the current situation but it seems the BoD were too busy exaggerating their influence to put Jolla off dealing with them. One point that struck me was that Jolla don't seem to have asked for any NDA for discussions but it was the BoD who wanted a NDA in place. The Open Letters were a PR stunt so that the Community-at-large couldn't blame the BoDs for messing things up and would cast Jolla as the bad guys here. Clarifications would be much desired instead of allowing doubts to be festered on. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:49. |
vBulletin® Version 3.8.8