On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 17:07, Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> wrote: > > Late last year, in the Architecture meeting, we had agreed to include timed, > MCE, Sharing Framework, Non-Graphics-Feedback (NGF), Profiles, and Qt > style APIs (QmSystem) identified on the http://wiki.meego.com/Architecture > as new technologies into MeeGo. We had hoped that all the documentation > and source code would end up well integrated into the 1.2 release of MeeGo. > > Recently we have been evaluating these features and feel that these > technologies, as integrated into MeeGo, haven't reached the maturity that > we want to commit them into MeeGo 1.2 core.
Thanks for circulating this - communication of such decisions is an important part of open development, IMHO. As Carsten asks, it'd be useful for the maintainers - and interesting for everyone else - to see the criteria and problems identified. However, could you clarify who the "we" is with "we have been evaluating" (given the comments from Sakari last time[1])? Also, are the meeting minutes going to be published where it was decided? I can understand not circulating for discussion beforehand; afterall, our architect group at work[0] doesn't go for consensus with every developer. But we do advertise each meeting before we have it, publish minutes and (technically ;-)) people can attend the meeting if they feel they have something to contribute. I think the same level of process is (at a minimum) required in MeeGo to allow participation of others in future; and people won't contribute if they don't see a way in. Thanks in advance, Andrew [0] ...of which I'm part. Oh, and it's not MeeGo related :-) [1] http://lists.meego.com/pipermail/meego-dev/2011-March/482156.html -- Andrew Flegg -- mailto:[email protected] | http://www.bleb.org/ _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
