On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 09:10, Carsten Munk <[email protected]> wrote: > So, this is primarily an e-mail to ask some questions to the two > members of the TSG, that I think would not be sufficiently covered in > a TSG meeting and answers might be better suited for the e-mail form.
Thanks for asking these questions openly Carsten. > We're not working in the open like we're supposed to - even though as > has been said - Intel, Nokia and we all know how to do it! But when > there's a big reveal mentality active, the mode of the people > participating switches to internal/private development, even if you > are only tangentially related to the object/UX being revealed. The questions you ask of the TSG are even more pressing, as it's been said, at conferences, that MeeGo is ready to contribute to now. Sure, people can raise some bugs around the barebones day 1 system; but even low-level hacking will be inhibited by, say, filesystem discussions or kernel settings which are being discussed in physical architecture meetings at Intel or Nokia offices. To be honest, for the sake of MeeGo, I *hope* some of these conversations are happening behind closed doors - but, given some of the public reaction to the btrfs thread, I'm worried they might not be. > In the future, in case you get another need to do a big reveal, how > will you ensure that active, public development/work/process will not > regress to not working in the open? Should the work for big reveals be > done initially outside the MeeGo project framework? It seems like the people working on big reveals for proprietary devices or launches should be very separate teams who are "clients" of MeeGo as much as any open source enthusiast. The MeeGo project - with developers at Intel, Novell, Nokia, the open source community, and others should be trying to deliver a product which meets the needs of Intel & Nokia product teams. The biggest problem is then finding a way by which the (say) Nokia product teams can communicate future requirements without divulging future plans. Perhaps this is the role two (of perhaps three future) TSG memebers can play: representing, subtly, the overarching directions their companies need MeeGo to go in. I suggest a third TSG member so that the MeeGo project can maintain the separation between it, and Nokia/Intel products. Cheers, Andrew -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/ Maemo Community Council chair _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
