By this, I'm assuming you mean working with groups like Jolla. You've worded it poorly enough that community ablaze, screaming about HiFo separating from the community.

True and False. This clause was placed for two reasons:
1> To allow the Council to adjust the voting laws in the event that Karma was no longer available due to technical issues.
2> To allow the Council and the Board to later amend them to include new groups as we merged with new "friends".

With proper input, for example, FC could include other criteria for allowing a linked community (like the ScratchBox community) a way to vote in elections. Maybe by giving them the ability to add the equivalent of Karma points by commits in that realm without requiring it all be filtered and duplicated in the garage.

It was never intended to be a way to cause a split between Hildon Foundation and the community.

Yes and no. The mission of the Hildon "Foundation is to promote and progress the future availability of Maemo® derived or inspired open source software, and related toolkits, for mobile devices." That's from section II of the ByLaws. While it's not limited to strictly the project of keeping maemo.org alive, the key focus is clearly to keep that infrastructure alive. Right now that's maemo.org.

Again, your poor choice of wording is leading others to believe that you are for drifting off and away from maemo.org.

Again, this is a reiteration in the second meeting of things discussed in the first meeting. December 8th was not the first meeting. The first meeting was the cluster-flux of google audio conferencing where the bylaws were voted on an accepted. As a founder, I was in and out of the meeting as technical glitches kept bouncing me, but I do recall this topic.

By which, apparently everyone but you was saying that the Maemo Community Council was in fact also the Foundation Council. If this were not the case it would make little sense, since how would the next election happen? The Foundation Council was to set the rules for the election. How can we have those rules created without a Foundation Council?

And how is that to be done if Maemo Community Council is not also Foundation Council? Just made my point. Thanks.

Wrong. It was, in fact a way to allow the Board Bylaws to be written up without including all the crap about Karma, as the first draft or two did. Would you like copies of the e-mail where we discussed removing this and having it formed by Council later, after the migration? I have them still. There was no discussion about doing this to separate powers between two Councils. The debate at that time was if there was even a NEED for a Council, not if there was a need for two of them...

The primary reason this was done was because we could not predict if Karma was even going to be an option in 6 months to a year, depending on how the transition went. It was not intended as a split from Maemo Community Council. Quite the contrary, it was a tool, giving them the power to update the rules to allow a smooth transition as the community adjusted into it's new and possibly technically limited home.

If it needs to be official then I'll state clearly: I vote, as a Director of the Board, that Maemo Community Council as it stands is in fact dually titled the Foundation Council. This was, in my belief, the intent from the beginning. Being the primary author of the ByLaws I think my belief on intentions would hold quite a bit of merit in this matter.