[MeeGo-dev] Architecture decisions (was Re: migration (back) to EDS)
sivan at omniqueue.com
Thu Mar 24 08:59:53 PDT 2011
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Carsten Munk <carsten at maemo.org> wrote:
> 2011/3/23 <zoltan.kis at nokia.com>:
>> 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
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
More information about the MeeGo-dev