> I just don't understand the fuss you're making, Nokia said - when
> karma was first introduced - it'd be used as an indication for any
> future possible device programmes.
That's still fine, as it measures some sort of contribution to the community
but not necessarily being or even more feeling part of the community. So it
really seems valid as an indicator for future device programs. Still I bet
people with no karma will also be able to get a device if they make a good
proposal.
> Why is that OK, but using it as a
> benchmark to indicate someone's involvement in the community, to elect
> a council - to represent that community - is such a Bad Thing[TM]?
Because it's the question if it's a "Contributors Council" or a "Community
Council". As I asked, what IS the Maemo Community? People with 25 karma and
more?
> One of the roles of the council is to give a voice to the community's
> cacophony, to make it easier to be heard by Nokia. If someone's not
> contributing to that cacophony, *why* should they get a vote in who
> filters, summarises and condenses it?
Well, that's why I suggested using 100 karma as limit so we really only give
good contributors (as in Debian) a voice.
When we lower the limit to 10 karma it almost seems unnecessary to have a limit
at all as 10 karma does not really seem to be a way to tell if someone is
actively contributing. When we have a limit of 25 we should accept that at
least 1/3 of the people who voted for the current council should be shut up and
be ignored.
When electing the government you need to be citizen to vote. By your logic
everyone not being active in politics (or some other sort of social work)
should not be allowed to vote.
To summarize the (my) essential question:
"Who is part of the Maemo (maemo.org) Community?"
_______________________________________________
maemo-community mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-community
