Re: GNOME mobile meeting

["Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri" <barbieri gmail com>]

On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Dave Neary <bolsh gnome org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>  It's just come to my attention that there are a bunch of people who are
>  not on gnome-embedded (the moderated-membership list), but are on here
>  (the public list).

I just noticed that I'm not there and never requested membership, but
I'd like to. Who I should contact?


>  So for all you people who aren't aware, there will be a GNOME Mobile
>  meeting during the Linux Foundation collaboration summit in Austin, on
>  the 10th of April (more info about the conference, including information
>  on how to register, are at
>  https://www.linux-foundation.org/events/collaboration).
>
>  There will also be a conference call this week (set up by Jeff) to
>  discuss a wide range of subjects, and set the tone for the meeting in
>  Austin (I will be making up an agenda for the day in Austin based on
>  that call).
>
>  The agenda for that call is:
>   * Unified messaging with similar/contributing projects (Ubuntu Mobile and
>    Moblin, Maemo, OpenMoko)
>   * LiMo (users of GTK+, perhaps help them better work with the community)
>   * Android (thus far faux Open Source)
>   * Anointing someone as release manager for the 'Mobile Platform' suite
>   * Events: OSiM USA, Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, OSCON, LinuxTag
>    and GUADEC

Since we have Android listed there I'd like to propose a topic to be
discussed in further meetings. The topic is very inflammable, don't
shoot any fire on it yet, but it's related to acceptance of the
Enlightenment project as gnome mobile project in exchange of better
integrating it with our stack.  Enlightenment was part of it once,
some people may remember it and some already said to me that they
associate those with "gtk/gnome 1.x dark days", but (fortunately)
people grow. They have some libs that we lack in our stack at the
moment (ie: Evas and Edje), some components collide  partially like
the window manager itself and we could either choose to left it open
to user choice, giving proper usage recommendations or just leave it
out/omit.    Some people may argue that cited libs would collide with
Clutter but I don't think this is true and they have different
roles/reqs/caps.
    I already asked Carsten (raster) about that and he likes the idea.
I already proposed myself as a technology integrator, the biggest pain
at the moment is different main loops with different capabilities:
while Ecore have pre-/post idlers (idler_enterer and idle_exiter),
Glib have a thread aware version. So one cannot be written on top of
the other easily, we'd have to add requirements from one to the other,
adding pre-post idlers to Glib being the easiest and more interesting
one.
    So what do you think, is it a topic for some meeting or just shut
up and forget about it?


>  Anyone who is interested in attending, please mail Jeff, he's looking
>  for an idea of numbers.

I'm interested. Do we have to mail jeff in private, he reads this list anyways.


-- 
Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri
--------------------------------------
Jabber: barbieri gmail com
   MSN: barbieri gmail com
  ICQ#: 17249123
 Skype: gsbarbieri
Mobile: +55 (81) 9927 0010