> ----- Original message -----
> From: "Foster, Dawn M" <[email protected]>
> To: "Randall Arnold" <[email protected]>
> cc: "MeeGo community" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [MeeGo-community] Progressing on the community device program
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:14:56 -0800
>
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 6:17 PM, Randall Arnold wrote:
>
> > Greetings all,
> >
> > I have gone over the contributions from the past several days to
> > the previous discussion and pulled together thoughts, questions and
> > proposals. The wiki page [1] has been updated with first some
> > requirements/attributes and then several proposals. The former
> > page content has been temporarily moved to the Discussion section
> > of the wiki page for reference.
> >
> First, thank you! I know this has been a lot of work, and I wanted to
> say that I really appreciate it.
>
> > Please find time to review the new content and help refine it.
> > Feel free to add new proposals or expand on existing ones. If you
> > have questions, please use this email thread for them. Comments
> > made to the wiki page should have your signature after them for
> > further reference.
> >
>
> I've added some feedback to the wiki page, but I have one larger question.
> 1) Should this be a standalone device program under the Linux
> Foundation responsible for shipping devices?
> or
> 2) Should we morph this program into a way for each device provider
> to point people to their own program where they would ship the
> devices?
>
> #1 is the direction that I originally proposed and the one that Randy
> has been running with and defining. It gives us more control for the
> MeeGo Community, but it puts a lot of additional logistics burdens on
> the Linux Foundation and the providers.
>
> #2 would leverage the existing provider infrastructure and make it
> easier for us. We would still need to put together a program, but it
> would be more focused on putting together a way for providers to
> submit their program and give information about what MeeGo community
> members need to do to get a device through the individual program.
> And then find a way to display this information on the meego.com site
> somewhere in a way that makes it easier to find and understand.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Dawn
>
I see 2 big strengths of single-conduit (Linux Foundation) management and
distribution:
1) Reduces appearance of bias.
2) Addresses redistribution... which could get messy if all providers handle
their own logistics.
Randy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ovi Mail: Making email access easy
http://mail.ovi.com
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-community mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-community
