> ----- Original message ----- > From: "Andrew Flegg" <[email protected]> > To: "Randall Arnold" <[email protected]> > cc: "Quim Gil" <[email protected]>, "ext Foster, Dawn M" > <[email protected]>, "MeeGo community" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MeeGo-community] Nudging the Community Device Program > Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:44:06 +0000 > > >On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 23:42, Randall Arnold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 1) Device providers would agree to a single conduit/point-of-contact in > > MeeGo > > community (preferrably Linux Foundation employee) to manage devices provided > > exclusively to MeeGo community under the auspices of a MeeGo Device Program. > > It seems to me that each vendor would have a particular purpose in > mind for each programme; whether to stimulate development of DSP > codecs for their device, get people to port MeeGo to it, improve > performance, write applications, seed a app development/user > community, ... > > If so, each vendor's provision of devices may well have more caveats > than "MeeGo community member in good standing". Would the single point > of contact within the project be really able to weigh up each > community member's contributions - and, more importantly, potential > future contributions for each of these programmes? If not - or no such > restrictions are available - it would seem to an outsider that the > same people were being offered hardware repeatedly; rather than saying > "oh, this is an ARM netbook-like development board; it'd be best with > kernel hackers, UX maintainers and OEM representatives" or "these NXX > prototypes would be best given discretely to the Harmattan Stars". >
I don't see anything in those comments that is a show-stopper for the Linux Foundation fronting the program. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, there's no 'one size fits all' so any program, even if run as a proxy for all providers, would naturally need to accommodate individual goals of the providers. I don't see that as insurmountable. We simply design those requirements into the program. As for the last concern, I'm not sure how you're arriving at that conclusion. I would expect we would have metrics to determine candidates as well as a nomination process to make sure eligible people received devices. There are in fact a whole host of ways to handle this (even contests, drawings, etc) so rather than jump to that conclusion let's brainstorm about a process that ensures fairness and usefulness, right? > > As we discussed this for maemo.org, the reality of global logistics became > > a sticking point, hence the need for a single managing entity-- which of > > course would manage a budget for shipping, occasional travel to device > > providers and meetups, etc. > > It would seem sensible to base such decisions on the two contributing > vendors we've had so far. How would Nokia prefer to handle it? Who and > how were the Lenovo IdeaPads handled? > > Putting in place a system without buy-in from the people who'd need to > provide the hardware could be an exercise in brainstorming without > many results (not directed at anybody in particular, just trying to > move the thread forward :-)) > I'm confused Andrew-- where in the discussion was it said this would be done without buy-in from providers? One of the very purposes of this dialog was to solicit it! I specifically involved TI at the start because I was approached by their OMAP community manager with the proposal to get Pandaboards into the hands of developers. Action around the MeeGo program had stagnated. Quim suggested that this TI opportunity be a prototype for the device program. And here we are discussing... so... ? Randy -------------------------------------------------------------- Ovi Mail: Making email access easy http://mail.ovi.com _______________________________________________ MeeGo-community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
