Community Council/Council election May 2012/Candidate declarations
Contents |
Candidates for May 2012 Maemo Community Council elections
The following candidates intend to stand for election to the Maemo Community Council.
- Iván Gálvez Junquera / ivgalvez
- Piotr Jawidzyk / Estel
- Joseph Charpak / jcharpak
- Craig Woodward / woody14619
Candidate declarations
Iván Gálvez Junquera
Nomination made on the maemo-community mailing list at http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005043.html
"I volunteer to the Concil for this next year. I'm pretty sure I won't have too much spare time but I can promise I won't leave without notice or move to any other platform in the years to come."
Piotr Jawidzyk
Nomination made on the maemo-community mailing list at http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005019.html
"As for myself, I would like to try my best @ helping to organize infrastructure governed by community, without Nokia's roadblocks. Don't get me wrong - despite my personal opinion about our "Nokia friends", I don't plan to go into "war" with them. I realize, that "friendly divorce" is much better for both parties, and would like to negotiate best terms of it.
Here we come to another thing - despite common opinions, Council doesn't have any "special tools". Really. The only difference from regular users that we have, is community mandate to talk with Nokia at Community behalf, and respect'n'trust - or lack of - from Community, that helps (or not, in second case) to coordinate projects, find solutions, settle small argues etc."
---
Roadmap I would like Community to take:
1st priority
Fix issues with infrastructure maintainership. I would like to hear Nokia position here - if cooperation between people maintaining infrastructure and Council is going to be so unsatisfying, is Nokia going to accept community will of changing infrastructure tech staff? IMO, problem of "hands tied" (Nokia paying bills, yet not demanding real work in return, Council not paying bills, so tech staff having Council in... *deep* respect, as history shows) is first hot potato to take care of.
2nd priority
Determining, if cooperation with Nokia (overall, including tech staff payed by Nokia) is to Community benefit or not, in long term. This is going to be open question, answered again and again, as time passes and situation change.
---
Variant a - positive effects of cooperation with Nokia
---
3.a
Keeping to make infrastructure better and better for developers, overcoming existing problems with infrastructure maintainer's help.
4.a (same for both both Nokia-cooperation scenarios)
Clarification of confusing statement from Nokia about community governance. SD69 was asking this via e-letters, quoting previous statements, and statements made my marias (Nokia representative) during last meeting with Council - results were totally opposite. He haven't got any answer from Nokia up to date.
Overall, I think that passing maintainership to Community - like it happened with QT - is most profitable scenario to both parties. Would like to negotiate that with Nokia.
5.a (same for both Nokia-cooperation scenarios)
Working with other platform's teams - both hardware'ish and software'ish (Mer, Vivaldi, Spark, Raspberry Pi, to name a few) - to share their experiences and knowledge. Preparing plans for fund-raising and developing own, independent device (hardware), powered by OS of our choice. If desirable by Community, transforming Maemo Community to self-governed, independent entity (foundation). Last one would require a referendum, obviously.
---
Variant b - non-satisfying results of cooperation with Nokia
---
3.b
Getting info about current resources used by Maemo ifnrastructure. Sounds trivial, yet, when SD69 asked it, Nokia's representative wasn't able to give more precise answers than "I have no idea".
4.b
Steady preparing infrastructure migration, solving issues of creating legal entity (foundation), dropping trademarks, etc. At the same time, negotiating with Nokia about lifetime of closed source binary repositories (PR's, and so goes on), and possibility to allow us redistributing it (still in closed way), when Nokia decide to shut down Fremantle repos.
5.b (same for both Nokia-cooperation scenarios)
Working with other platform's teams - both hardware'ish and software'ish (Mer, Vivaldi, Spark, Raspberry Pi, to name a few) - to share their experiences and knowledge. Preparing plans for fund-raising and developing own, independent device (hardware), powered by OS of our choice. If desirable by Community, transforming Maemo Community to self-governed, independent entity (foundation). Last one would require a referendum, obviously.
---
I think I doesn't need to add, that variant "a" fit's my liking much more, but in my opinion, it's council responsibility to be prepared for both scenarios.
Joseph Charpak
Nomination made on the maemo-community mailing list at http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005051.html
"I've been a maemo user from the N800 days, although I actually started with the 770 when it dropped in price due to the release of the N800.. I've been an avid follower of TMO since its ITT days. As a council member I would strive for more transparency in council actions. As a starting point I would ensure that announcements would be made weekly through the council blog, with a new post to the ask a council thread on TMO as well."
Craig Woodward
Nomination made on the maemo-community mailing list at http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/maemo-community/2012-April/005063.html
Questions candidates might like to answer
The following questions have been asked of candidates, feel free to add to them.
1. What are your thoughts on integrating Harmattan and potentially even Meltemi into the Maemo community and maemo.org?
2. As you're aware, there's a discussion on TMO[1] which touches upon many of the things which will be important in this election. Do you agree there's been a breakdown in communication between Nokia, Nemein and the council; and the council and the community? If so, how do we fix it?
3. Do You agree, that lack of devices (hardware) is one of major roadblocks for Open mobility we would like to have? If yes, which way should Council focus on supporting:
a) Cooperation with big companies (Nokia?), hoping that they'll finally release "device of our dreams" (or thing close to)?
b) Starting hard, demanding and somewhat costly (without guarantee of success) path of creating own device via donations, which - if succeed - may result in totally, or almost totally open device (way of Open Pandora, Raspberry Pi, etc)?