[MeeGo-dev] Architecture decisions (was Re: migration (back) to EDS)
zoltan.kis at nokia.com
zoltan.kis at nokia.com
Thu Mar 24 11:20:52 PDT 2011
> From: carsten.munk at gmail.com [mailto:carsten.munk at gmail.com
> Sent: 24 March, 2011 09:08
> 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.
Both solutions have people committed to it.
> 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.
True, and at the moment they can't rely on Nokia. But Nokia does not control
tracker either, most of the tracker guys are external consultants.
> 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.
There are two things:
1. For short term, doing the homework: MeeGo needs to maturize as fast as
possible, and we need to get the releases rolling with usable content.
2. MeeGo needs to be competitive on the long term, even become the leading
innovation platform of the future.
Your comment and Intel's decision addressed the first part.
But there is a lot of competition out there, which is pulling away on the
integrated content handling technologies that e.g. tracker tries to cover
(Android by big margin, and I surmise WP7 might have something too), so there
should be a long term technology selection plan, too.
I just proposed to write down what are our goals (on short and long term if
you wish), set measurable criteria, and communicate clearly the short-term and
long-term priorities, in an inclusive and not exclusive way.
We need to give chance to creativity and alternative solutions.
This can be done better than now, and the MeeGo community/TSG/architects have
to learn how to do it.
[ As a side note, both Intel's and my/our viewpoint is biased. For instance we
have had cool plans based on capabilities provided by tracker (among others),
which promised good returns for the cost. Then, we didn't have much time and
priorities allocated for MeeGo work, but assumed things about it for the
future. The technology selection trend here favors the tracker type of
integrating technologies, because it's been user experience centric, at least
for the (recently lost) future, whereas Intel's has mainly been HW centric.
Two different perceptions of MeeGo, projected down into the MW architecture.
But we can still have both enabled? As more players join MeeGo, it's important
we offer wide range technologies with different weight emphasis on different
But I don't want to keep you (and myself) off from work any more.
Again, sorry Arjan and others for getting too much involved in this decision,
but I guess you can imagine how is it when first your own company cuts the
future and then your partner too cuts some of the technologies you are working
with and/or assumed to create nice things with, and all this in the way it was
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 4560 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the MeeGo-dev