Active Topics
-
Porting apps to Leste (29)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 1 day, 10 hrs ago -
Install Fonts in N900 (68)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by teroyk - 2 days, 13 hrs ago - more...
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to joerg_rw For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2014-10-01
, 04:48
|
|
Posts: 1,994 |
Thanked: 3,342 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ N900: Battery low. N950: torx 4 re-used once and fine; SIM port torn apart
|
#82
|
Constructive debate of legal obstacles around HiFo and e.V. is distorted by discussion of personalities. If the topic was started by a programmer seeking to improve/re-invent a program, the programmer would have left the thread long ago.
Are you even reading the tags of the thread?
I am ROFL!!!!!!
MC e.V. and HiFo co-existing was a possible model where the eV would be a Booster club only.
Who has to have access to the bank? All board members, all EU-resident board members, or the 3 board members signing at court?
A regular bank to have signers accepted EU-wide for an account with reasonable fees + charges would be brilliant. Not like there is a worldwide bank... Thank you, Chemist!
Council is not legally obligated to carry out the whims of the community, but it is obligated to consider the wishes of the community, and move in the same direction, as far as legally possible.
And thank you for writing about the controlled hand-off.
Best wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Per aspera ad astra...
Are you even reading the tags of the thread?
I am ROFL!!!!!!
Originally Posted by Win7Mac
Does HiFo board have the right to terminate HiFo and have over its assets? And when will there be elections to MC e.V. board?
Theoretically yes, but meanwhile HiFo board decided to terminate itself and hand over all assets to MC eV.
MC e.V. and HiFo co-existing was a possible model where the eV would be a "Förderverein" only.
We thought it eventually would be doable for a regular bank to have signers accepted EU-wide for an account with reasonable fees + charges, but that's yet to be seen. Chemist is after it.
Yes, those 3 boardies signing at court have to be EU citizens or residents. But since board positions so far are unlimited, everybody may participate in addition.
MC e.V. and HiFo co-existing was a possible model where the eV would be a Booster club only.
Who has to have access to the bank? All board members, all EU-resident board members, or the 3 board members signing at court?
A regular bank to have signers accepted EU-wide for an account with reasonable fees + charges would be brilliant. Not like there is a worldwide bank... Thank you, Chemist!
Council is not legally obligated to carry out the whims of the community, but it is obligated to consider the wishes of the community, and move in the same direction, as far as legally possible.
Originally Posted by woody14619
That's a bit of discrimination. As far as I know from "My Fair Lady", it is (some of) foreigners that can practice English to perfection; most native speakers have some kind of accent. When you attack a person for errors in English language, there is no need to carry the insult further by speaking about the speaker being not-native.
Quite the ego you have there. A non-native speaker, telling a native speaker he doesn't understand the language.
And thank you for writing about the controlled hand-off.
Originally Posted by joerg_rw
Thank you for the helpful clarification.
admin channel access is controlled via invite-exempt list (/mode -I), in the very beginning it been based on access-list (/msg chanserv help access). You been on both lists from the time you first got invited into admin channel and showed up there. When you don't authenticate to nickserv, you can't get identified by neither of both lists and access cannot get granted. When your client tries to autojoin protected channels on client startup, before you authenticated, then you'll run into trouble. Nothing a chanop could do about that, call that "refuse to fix" if you want.
Best wishes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Per aspera ad astra...
|
|
2014-10-01
, 04:50
|
|
Posts: 51 |
Thanked: 260 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
|
#83
|
Originally Posted by joerg_rw
close, it is not the trustee , but the legal entity that the the "trustee" is a trustee for that receives the assets.
the seventeenth effort:
HiFo or MCeV or whoever is
trustee
appointed by the
Beneficiary Maemo Community
The trustee (eventually) receives assets from Nokia who want those assets to become property of Maemo Community and hand it to the trustee for the sole purpose to handle it according to his role as community proxy.
The trustee received and holds donations from Maemo Community members which been bound to getting used for, and according to voiced interest of, Maemo Community at large, as well as particular donors.
Originally Posted by joerg_rw
again close - it is not " is it legal" that they consider, but "is it in the best interests of the entity (community in this case)"
The trustee is supposed to
- Carry out the expressed terms of the trust instrument
- Defend the trust
- Prudently invest trust assets
- Be impartial among beneficiaries
- Account for actions and keep beneficiaries informed
- Be loyal
- Not delegate
- Not profit; however, may charge fees for services to the Trust
- Not be in a conflict of interest position
- Administer in the best interest of the beneficiaries
It is quite obvious that the trustee is supposed to listen to any interest the Maemo Community voices, consider if it's legal, and in case there's no conflict with law, act accordingly, so to "administer in the best interest of the beneficiaries".
Particularly it's not up to trustee to ignore the beneficiary for an arbitrary period of time (like 6 months, one year) after appointment and act on own agenda not discussed with and acknowledged by beneficiary, since this is not a representative or indirect democracy, but rather a direct deliberative democracy if anything, with any entity like Council and HiFo serving to administrate and facilitate and execute decisions of community, but not decide or take own initiative and agenda.
|
|
2014-10-01
, 04:58
|
|
Posts: 1,994 |
Thanked: 3,342 times |
Joined on Jun 2010
@ N900: Battery low. N950: torx 4 re-used once and fine; SIM port torn apart
|
#84
|
Originally Posted by chainsawbike
Quick line...
again close - it is not " is it legal" that they consider, but "is it in the best interests of the entity (community in this case)"
Are you telling me that "trustee" has right-and-obligation to do something illegal if it is deemed to be in the best interests of the community? And, who determines "best interests" - community or trustee?
Best wishes.
 |
|
2014-10-01
, 05:04
|
|
Posts: 2,222 |
Thanked: 12,651 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ SOL 3
|
#85
|
Originally Posted by chainsawbike
Tell me, how's trustee deciding that the interest of community is not in best interest of community? Patronizing?
again close - it is not " is it legal" that they consider, but "is it in the best interests of the entity (community in this case)"
|
|
2014-10-01
, 05:25
|
|
Posts: 51 |
Thanked: 260 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
|
#86
|
Wikiwide, bizarre scenario but ok...
Before answering that i need to point out that i missed a link in the chain.
The trustee considers if it is in the best interests of the legal entity, the legal entity is there for the best interests of the entity (community).
If the trustee decides that something that is illegal is in the best interests of the legal entity they are a trustee for, then the legal entity is liable for the consequences, and in all honesty if you have sane laws then the legal consequences in their own right should make it not in their best interests. The trustee can also choose to step down.
Sadly this basic structure also applies ( although not in a legally enforceable sense ) in "outlaw originations", and your above statement is true.
The trustees that were voted in determines "best interests".
Before answering that i need to point out that i missed a link in the chain.
The trustee considers if it is in the best interests of the legal entity, the legal entity is there for the best interests of the entity (community).
If the trustee decides that something that is illegal is in the best interests of the legal entity they are a trustee for, then the legal entity is liable for the consequences, and in all honesty if you have sane laws then the legal consequences in their own right should make it not in their best interests. The trustee can also choose to step down.
Sadly this basic structure also applies ( although not in a legally enforceable sense ) in "outlaw originations", and your above statement is true.
The trustees that were voted in determines "best interests".
|
|
2014-10-01
, 05:36
|
|
Posts: 51 |
Thanked: 260 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
|
#87
|
Originally Posted by joerg_rw
The electorate vote for the Representatives that they believe hold their views of what is in the best interests of the community*, that is what election campaigns and voting are all about.
Tell me, how's trustee deciding that the interest of community is not in best interest of community? Patronizing?
this system is used because it is simply not practical to hold a referendum for every little thing, instead you choose a representative to "represent your views"
*entity, electorate
|
|
2014-10-01
, 05:44
|
|
Posts: 2,222 |
Thanked: 12,651 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ SOL 3
|
#88
|
Originally Posted by chainsawbike
No, this is _not_ and never been a representative democracy. And there's no referendum needed for every little decision. Council is supposed to know what's happening in community, even asking if something is not obvious, and act accordingly in a responsive manner, I.E. during days. Referenda are basically only needed for changing the rules and for really severe decisions that can't get discussed and unanimously (with all participating community members) decided by council in e.g. the weekly meetings.
The electorate vote for the Representatives that they believe hold their views of what is in the best interests of the community*, that is what election campaigns and voting are all about.
this system is used because it is simply not practical to hold a referendum for every little thing, instead you choose a representative to "represent your views"
*entity, electorate
On a second thought there's basically nothing to decide at all, usually. "shall we do another coding contest?" sure go ahead! "will maemo council organize it?" probably not since not enough manpower, up to community members to do that. "will council support?" Sure thing, that's what council is made for. "shall we get more harddisks for servers?" ask techstaff, they will tell you if we need "will council buy them?" no, but council will tell HiFo that techstaff says servers need more harddisks and HiFo will (hopefully) buy them. "shall we rename talk.maemo.org into talk.jolla-community.org?" No, not technically feasible and makes no sense at all...
Last edited by joerg_rw; 2014-10-01 at 06:03.
|
|
2014-10-01
, 05:58
|
|
Posts: 51 |
Thanked: 260 times |
Joined on Sep 2010
|
#89
|
joerg_rw i pose you this question:
for council* how do they know what the electorate^ thinks is in the best interests of the electorate^?
*board, or any entity for that matter
^community, entity they represent
for council* how do they know what the electorate^ thinks is in the best interests of the electorate^?
*board, or any entity for that matter
^community, entity they represent
|
|
2014-10-01
, 06:06
|
|
Posts: 2,222 |
Thanked: 12,651 times |
Joined on Mar 2010
@ SOL 3
|
#90
|
Originally Posted by chainsawbike
By listening to community and the intentions and interests that get voiced. And of course by applying simple common sense
for council* how do they know what the electorate^ thinks is in the best interests of the electorate^?
Last edited by joerg_rw; 2014-10-01 at 06:13.
 |
| Tags |
| discussion, legal body |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 06:05.
HiFo or MCeV or whoever is
trustee
appointed by the
Beneficiary Maemo Community
The trustee (eventually) receives assets from Nokia who want those assets to become property of Maemo Community and hand it to the trustee for the sole purpose to handle it according to his role as community proxy.
The trustee received and holds donations from Maemo Community members which been bound to getting used for, and according to voiced interest of, Maemo Community at large, as well as particular donors.
The trustee is supposed to
It is quite obvious that the trustee is supposed to listen to any interest the Maemo Community voices, consider if it's legal, and in case there's no conflict with law, act accordingly, so to "administer in the best interest of the beneficiaries".
Particularly it's not up to trustee to ignore the beneficiary for an arbitrary period of time (like 6 months, one year) after appointment and act on own agenda not discussed with and acknowledged by beneficiary, since this is not a representative or indirect democracy, but rather a direct deliberative democracy if anything, with any entity like Council and HiFo serving to administrate and facilitate and execute decisions of community, but not decide or take own initiative and agenda.
It's also obviously not up to trustee to redefine the beneficiary.
Last edited by joerg_rw; 2014-10-01 at 04:35.