On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 7:04 AM, Carsten Munk <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun Apr 3 2011 01:15:18 AM CEST, Jeremiah Foster > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Foster, Dawn M <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On Apr 2, 2011, at 6:53 AM, Jeremiah Foster wrote >> > > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 8:31 PM, Foster, Dawn M <[email protected]> >> > > wrote:
>> > > > I wanted to let everyone know that we have a new time for our >> > > > Technical Steering Group meetings. While the 20:00 UTC meetings >> > > > were convenient for the Americas and Europe, it was very difficult >> > > > for people in Asia to participate. [...] >> > > > If you have a better time that works >> > for more people than the current time, I encourage you to propose it. >> >> I propose we leave the time as it is until there is more open >> discussion about when these meetings should occur. I don't see a >> consensus forming around the time yet. >> >> Do those who plan to attend the TSG have opinions on when the meeting >> should be held? > > While it is my belief that the time schedules of the TSG meeting is up to the > members of the TSG to decide The TSG unilaterally decides policy and process in MeeGo. This is a problem because those who sit on the TSG have their company's interests at heart (naturally.) This means that Nokia and Intel decide MeeGo policy along with a member of the Linux Foundation. Shouldn't that be solely the Linux Foundation instead which presumably will be less biased? Currently its just two companies business interests that shape MeeGo policy, one of those companies is scaling back its contribution significantly. > Rotating the meeting from noon pacific, 10pm finland, 3am Asia to > 11pm pacific, 9am finland, 2pm(?) asia seems like a fair time. If there is a > topic you're especially passionate about, it's possible to post comments on > mailing list/have someone be your proxy or show up - 3am in Asia made this > impossible for many to show up. But there has been no presence of LG and China Mobile at the TSG meetings. They didn't show up at the nomination which is reasonable since it was at a ridiculous time for them. But there is no email from Yonghui Wang from China Mobile, for example, on any of the lists I follow or on the Handset list. Yet he's been appointed to the Handset WG. Your suggestion of sending mail to the list or sending a proxy to the meetings is a good one, why hasn't this been done? In fact, why don't we move the decision making process for the TSG to a mailing list where people from any time zone can participate and decision making is done in the open? > Given we have two new players (at least) such as China Mobile and LGE in > MeeGo, it is fair to schedule the meetings to allow them to participate > properly. For those thinking they won't show up anyway, at least LGE guys > (plus handset WG member) already hang out in the MeeGo IRC channels, so not a > big leap to join another IRC channel. If by "players" you mean companies that will make decisions about MeeGo then I don't think it is in fact fair. I thought that participation in the workgroups was going to be contribution based; where is the contribution from these two "players"? What code has been contributed? What architectural decisions made? If positions in the workgroups are not contribution based, what are they based on? Regards, Jeremiah _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
