----- Original Message ----- > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Robin Burchell > <robin+me...@viroteck.net> wrote: > > Obviously, we'd probably need to rethink some things like project > > governance, infrastructure, etc - but provided these can be solved, > > what do you all think? Can it be business as usual? > > > I believe so. In fact I think this could actually enable us to create > a true open base truly governed by community perhaps similar to the Qt > Open Governance project. I think we should align with Qt releases as > much as we can as our *core* app dev technology. Through concentrating > on rocking Qt support, we earn a lot of great technologies (including > HTML5 if I read right the Qt5 direction) not to mention great SDK and > documentation to engage and attract veteran and new developers. (I get > people asking me all the time how to use Qt on Android, as the native > tools for them more often then not do not provide the experience they > know or heard of about Qt) > > So I'll shed some light on how I see this and how we should proceed: > > 1) Concentrate on the handset and *ONLY* on it from now onward. "Do > one thing and do it best (tm)". >
Why would you exclude 4/5 of the people involved in the meego project? Handsets weren't even the largest part of the project... Because Meego netbooks are "fairly well-established," Intel will add APIs (application programming interfaces) to ensure applications written for them will work in Tizen, said Imad Sousou, director of the Intel Open Source Technology Center. Asus, Dell, Acer, Lenovo, HP and Toshiba have made Meego devices, but they have only a minimal presence in the market. "On mobile, obviously, the situation is different in terms of deployment," Sousou said. Since there are few Meego phones in use, Intel has decided not to encumber Tizen with legacy APIs, he said. Nasa > 2) Invite contacts from any handset mfct. interested to tell us their > requirements and what would make it attractive for them to use as a > base and try to respond to these. Nokia seems the first natural > company I would like to talk to. (Admittedly as a passionate Nokia > fan, I would love to try and do something that would help Nokia to > produce the next Linux phone if they ever want to do this again. > People who are fans of other vendors could do the same) > > 3) Vendor involvement is only through having contacts but they do not > steer the project, unless getting into steering based by merit and > proving skills. Community steers it. They can make suggestion and help > in implementation but through the normal community channels, as a > community contributor. No precedence or short-lanes to vendors and > participation rights are based *only* on merit. > > > Related to (2) I talked with Qualcomm people back then before SF2011 > (we were supposed to meet in SF) about MeeGo but there was some > concerns back then due to the heavy vendor steering, perhaps now we > could invite them aboard, presenting a pure community project. > > These are some steps I think we could take, I would propose to see how > we can align as best with Qt Open Gov now and follow their governance > structure. > > -Sivan > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-dev mailing list > MeeGo-dev@meego.com > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev > http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
