On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 2:01 PM, <quim....@nokia.com> wrote: > The role of the Maemo Community Council doesn't translate here as such. >
To an extent, that's true, yes. There's less of a requirement for a community-to-Nokia and a Nokia-to-community conduit, but I don't believe the requirement has gone away. The vendors involved in MeeGo are going to represent relationships similar to the current Maemo/maemo.org (just substitute MeeGo-Linux Foundation and MeeGo-<vendor>), and corporate personnel involved in the project are never going to be completely free of their corporate requirements. The council's mandate encompasses much more than just representing the community's views to Nokia and vice-versa. It also fills an important facilitation role as well as providing some focus and leadership (lead-by-example, not lead-by-administration) for the community. I think the biggest issue clouding these discussions is the mess that MeeGo-LF vs MeeGo-<vendor> tends to create (which is made even worse when you bring in Harmattan which isn't really even MeeGo at all!). lbt has brought up the issue of addressing vendor stuff in meego.com several times, and I think the ideology of a pure MeeGo-LF being the only thing we ever have to address here is a bit of a pipe dream (unless, of course, it's Nokia's intention to rid themselves of that pesky community by dumping them off on the LF :rolleyes:), and likely a stance that will be harmful to the platform in the long run. So, yes, I believe the concept this translates well and I believe an elected body representing non-affiliated interests and providing community focus and facilitation beyond the CWG is a Good Thing. The Technical Working Group, by name, is not an appropriate body to be the primary one handling community issues. _______________________________________________ Meego-community mailing list Meego-community@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
