So Nokia has dramatically reduced commitment to MeeGo and has cited,amongst other thinks, MeeGo’s inability to deliver a focussed baselinewith sufficient speed. I happen to agree with this failure (and givenNokia was a significant part of MeeGo’s management I don’t thinkthere’s a blame issue – more a how do we fix it issue)
Assumptions and observations:
- MeeGo is intended to provide a viable but focussed baseline upon which vendors can build compliant products; not to be an expansive and ‘complete’ linux distribution.
- MeeGo has limited dedicated resourcs and focusing them on a reduced MeeGo core will improve quality.
- MeeGo’s main customers are not end-users – they are device vendors : they should be the focus of our core engineering team’s design, delivery and QA effort.
- MeeGo core does not appreciate the difficulties a vendor has in tracking MeeGo;
- A visibly secure development model is important to the perceived integrity of MeeGo – so visibly restricting write access to the core is important.
- MeeGo Core is confirmed as not being a linux distribution
- An open MeeGo project (openMeeGo?) is created on the community infrastructure to provide a reference MeeGo distribution
- Packages not *essential* to the delivery of a compliant MeeGo Core are moved into the community OBS (emacs, vi etc – maybe even the reference UXes) where they are available for use by development teams and end users.
- “openMeeGo” acts as a reference vendor and provides a forum for reviewing and improving the processes MeeGo uses to communicate releases
- MeeGo community (which includes core developers) has a significantly lower barrier to entry.