On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Carsten Munk <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/3/23 <[email protected]>: >> Since lot of time was anyway lost on the subject, and it's an important >> subject, perhaps it would make sense to consecrate a wiki page to it, >> including the main use cases to be solved, the solutions proposed, the test >> data sets involved, test cases used for measuring the solutions (in >> production type of environment and background load), and then measurements >> for each solution (eventually on separate pages). This work anyway needs to >> be done, actually a lot has already been done, so it is not waste of time. >> It does not need to happen entirely (including all test cases) before Imad's >> decision, just a few. If you don't like this, just use email or whatever way >> you want. But let's set a deadline for this preparation until Monday, so >> that Imad makes a decision on Monday. Meanwhile the work doesn't have to >> stop. > > Please also remember that if there is supposed to be a technology > selection, your dispute document also has to list people/companies > publically committed to the task of implementation/maintenance. Actual > contribution/commitment weighs harder than numbers sometimes. > +1
> Let me draw a parallel. When a feature comes in, there is a query > around for who can and wants to invest in implementing and maintaining > the feature (at least one release cycle up to a year after the > release, in case of very important central feature probably several > cycles) as well as QA responsibility. When a assignee/QA is found, the > feature is accepted on the roadmap. A feature may cover several > modifications in multiple components. > > At that time when a FEA# is proposed a component developer can pitch > investments/commitment from companies to support it through numbers > and facts, or take on the sole responsibility himself/herself. > > It's pretty obvious Intel has knowledge assets and people doing > SyncEvolution/EDS already so they would probably not be interested in > investing in the alternative. Which means someone else has to do the > lifting. We can't ask for Intel's investment into technologies or > strong arm them, nor should we. ++1 > > If I was a product manager or TSG looking at the technology > choice/selection I would look, even before looking at the numbers, > check if there's actual resources listed that will actually do the > hard lifting for technology direction and discard the technologies > that doesn't have sufficient. And then evaluate based on the facts. +1 BR, -Sivan _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
