It is very probable that those with "position of influence within
the
project" are not on the mailing list.
On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:43:15 -0700
Bob Summerwill <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks for the follow-up, Mats.
I was expecting a public response. Normally when you say
"this
project is broken", I would expect some kind of "no it isn't"
response from the project leads, or at least "yes, we are aware
there
are problems, and here's what we are doing to mitigate it".
To get
nothing back is very disappointing. It gives the impression
that
nobody in a position of influence within the project really cares
whether Tizen fails or succeeds. That, or they are gagged (which
is
more likely). Not so great for an open source project in
either
case.
While it is great to see your response, those impressions remain
with
me.
Thanks for the additional information around the LinuxCon
structure
and IoT consortium.
I dug up this amusing tweet on the topic :-)
https://twitter.com/TomRaftery/status/486797277181538304
[1]
Glad to hear that you will be presenting about Tizen in the
future.
Best of luck with that.
Cheers,
Bob
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Mats Wichmann
<[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 08/22/14 11:00, Bob Summerwill wrote:
> >
> > The fact that there has been NO REPLY whatsoever to this mail
a
> > week later speaks volumes about the state of the Tizen
Project.
> >
> > I've been watching various recorded presentations from
LinuxCon
> > in the last couple of days. LinuxCon is organized by the
Linux
> > Foundation, but I've seen no mention whatsoever of Tizen at
the
> > conference.
> ...
> > Please could somebody in a position of influence within the
Tizen
> > Project make at least some response?
>
> Position of Influence != me. This is just me as an
individual.
> Don't necessarily expect to hear from such a person here (at
least
> not at the level of influence you seem to be after).
>
> Bob, I have to say that your original post didn't really read
like
> it was fishing for a response. My own personal reaction is
not one
> of major disagreement with your positions. There's a lot to be
> fixed, and the spate of governance and other activities ramping
up
> for Tizen 3.0 don't seem to have had a lot of influence on the
kind
> of things you were complaining about (not yet, at least). It's
> frustrating. I'll observe that the Tizen platform development
> community seems to be pretty healthy and humming along nicely
in
> the absence of very public roadmaps, released devices, and such
> like. Like you, I'd personally worry about building a
third-party
> business plan with things looking this unpredictable.
>
> on to...
>
> LinuxCon in general is running colocated mini-confs for Tizen
and a
> number of other projects. If a talk proposal that happens to
focus
> on Tizen gets accepted for one of the main LinuxCon tracks, so
be
> it, but at a LinuxCon/CloudOpen Tizen would not be expected to
be a
> main focus area. You'll see that from the call for proposals -
the
> focus is more general that such a specific project as Tizen. So
> you'll probably see Tizen activties only at the miniconf, which
may
> or may not even have an internet presence. I make no comment
on
> that setup, just reporting that it's the way it is.
[Information
> Note: I'll be doing a Tizen presentation at the LinuxCon Europe
> miniconf in October, so I know there will be some presence
there]
>
> and...
>
> Some IoT things look like they may happen in the context of the
Open
> Interconnect Consortium (openinterconnect.org [2]), which has
key Tizen
> participants as founding members. I haven't heard a lot of
Tizen
> wording around the founding of that group, but I'm assuming
that
> there will be synergy here (again, just personal opinions).
>
> cheers,
>
> -- mats
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/general [3]
>
