I second Mark Murphy's suggestions.. My background some the FOSS projects I have contributed to are used in Sun WTK, Eclipse MTJ, MotoDEV Tools, SE J2me Sdk, and etc..
and I am not the only one with things to contributed both past and future here..as I have noticed a lot of peers I know in the mobile FOSS community showing up on all Android lists. Let the community surprise Google and OHA with the 'heavy lifting' that they can do if given a chance.. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Mark Murphy <[email protected]>wrote: > > Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote: > > Restricting access to those settings > > through an explicit UI was found to be an appropriate mechanism for > > users to known precisely enough what was going on and to get > > appropriate expectations about battery life. > > Key phrase: "was found". More on that below. > > > Another reason that motivated the change is an overall concern about > > privacy and abuse. There've been concerns that changing settings like > > GPS, data roaming, wifi, airplane mode without the user's explicit > > action for each operation was inappropriate. > > > > Both of those areas were broadly reported by users, by carriers, and > > in the press. > > > > 1.5 addresses those concerns based on the feedback that we're > > received, by putting the user in better control of their phone. > > Let us assume, for the moment, that the implemented solution is the best > solution, or at least the best solution given implementation timetables > and available staff. > > The problem is transparency. > > As is evidenced by several posts on the original thread, we in the > development community have ideas relevant to this area. For example, Mr. > Legendre's post that came in while I was writing this seems like a fine > middle ground between the original implementation and what has > transpired with 1.5. > > Why is the core Android team only getting this input now? Because, as > far as I am aware, NOBODY #(#$)@#(@ ASKED! > > I doubt there are all that many people in the developer community who > actually want to drain the device battery excessively or without user > awareness. Similarly, I doubt there are all that many of us who were > using this stuff to violate user privacy and are left twisting our > handlebar mustaches, cursing those meddling Googlers for foiling our > devious plots. Hence, we are all being punished for the deeds of a few. > > When the problems arose, there were three basic ways of addressing them: > > 1. Ask the developer community "Hey, considering some of you are > (intentionally or inadvertently) screwing the users, any suggestions for > how we can fix this?" In other words, involve us in the design. > > 2. Ask the developer community "Hey, we see these problems, here's our > cut at a solution, any ideas?" In other words, involve us in the design > review. > > 3. Don't involve the community in the design. Considering that > implementation of this sort of thing already happens behind closed > doors, you wind up with what has happened -- we only get to provide > input after the cow has left the barn. > > By your use of "was found" and the rest of the tone around this, I am > assuming management chose door #3. > > Going with #1, or even #2, gives Google some benefits: > > -- You might get some good ideas. While many of us wouldn't pass the > Google entrance exam, we're not all complete morons. I, for one, am a > very incomplete moron. > > -- You might get some people interested in contributing to the development. > > -- You avoid giving the development community the sense that we're all > "the bad guys" in this story, by giving the community a chance to help > police itself rather than, in effect, tarring all of us with the same > brush. > > If Google *did* involve some folk in the community on the design (e.g., > by private invitation), that's cool, but you might consider letting us > know that happened. > > I know the core Android team is short-staffed. Short of trying to pump > up Google's stock price, the best way I can see for us in the community > to help with that is to help with the development of Android proper. > However, particularly in cases like this, that can only happen if we are > given the opportunity to help, even if only on a small piece of the puzzle. > > Give piece a chance. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons Guy) > http://commonsware.com | http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > Warescription: Three Android Books, Plus Updates, $35/Year > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
