Excerpts from Valerio Valerio's message of Thu Sep 23 21:29:47 +0300 2010: >perhaps you need to ask Nokia/Intel/... about that definition,
Isn't that exactly what my initial email, that bug, and now this thread is sort of providing the opportunity for? If someone wants to explain that, then I'm sure that nobody would mind hearing what they have to say. > I'm just trying to understand the reasons why this is not completely open Inertia is most likely I'd say. When, throughout the lifecycle of the project, closed infrastructure has been used, and continues to function, and there is no instructions to do anything different - then, considering that there is no immediate benefit to doing things differently, it will continue on much the same. > and as I said I totally agree that the entire development cycle should be > open, and that's one of the goals of MeeGo. Perhaps we just need more > patience and wait a bit more ;) Wait for what, exactly? For the issue to be [more or less] ignored for another four years? OK, I admit, that isn't exactly helpful, but... ...I think there's been quite a lot of tolerance for MeeGo to find its feet and start moving towards open development, and I'm personally certainly willing to keep on waiting and helping prod it in the right direction as I can. But at the same time, I'm not willing to keep talking to a stone wall, while watching pretty much nothing happen. If the worry of disclosing secret information is the reason that things are still done behind closed doors, then I don't see that changing, and waiting isn't going to help at all. > > Best regards, > > -- > Valério Valério -- Robin Burchell http://rburchell.com _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
