Re: SFO call for action - aka questionnaire

[Mikko Varri <vmj linuxbox fi>]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 03:48:19PM +0200, Nils Faerber wrote:
> 
> About you: 
> 1. Please describe your background a little bit, i.e. what are you
> working on that made you interested in Gnome/mobile? If it helps us
> understand your background, who are you working for?
> 

By profession, I've been doing mobile applications on S60 platform for
a few years.  I'm working for, and a partner in, a company called
Comvise.  We mainly do subcontracting for Nokia (sw development and
project management).

On my spare time (probably due to my day job) I got interested in
mobile app development on Linux, too.  So that is why I subscribed to
this list.  (To spell it out, I'm on this list out of my own interest.) 

> 
> When you first heard of Gnome/mobile:
> 2. What did you think it to be? Please be as frank as possible - what
> were your really *first* thoughts?
> 

At the time, I was trying to figure out all the different mobile Linux
platforms.  Things like what they had in common, what APIs are popular
enough to exist in most of them.  So when I bumped into Gnome/mobile,
I thought "Yes! A mobile platform that would, for sure, stick to
GTK!".  It also, in my mind, implied that freedom would be promised.

> 
> 3. What did you expect from it? What did you hope to see as a result
> from it?
> 

I hoped to see a reference platform.  Something I could develop apps
against.  After which I would port (debug) and package the app for
different devices.

> 
> 4. Why did you join the group? Do you feel like a "member" at all? If
> not, why not?
> 

I joined the group to keep up-to-date on how Gnome/mobile is shaping
up.

I don't feel like a member, but mainly because my interest is more in
application development for GM based platforms, as opposed to
development of GM itself.  Although, that may change.

> 
> 5. Did it match your expectations? If not, why? If yes, how?
> 

Not quite.  Gnome being so fully featured, I expected to see more of
the libraries that are available in Gnome.  For example, libsoup for
HTTP traffic.

Also, at least in the press release, the platform was defined as
subset of Gnome.  This, to me, ment that most of the mobile device
specifics would be out of GM (like camera or location APIs).

So, GM, in its current form, seems a bit limited for app development.

> 
> 6. Is there something like a top-three of most important goals that you
> (personally, not thinking of the group as a whole) would like to see
> addressed by Gnome/mobile? (Three would be great, one is enough too)
> 

1. Rethink the set of components.  Does Gnome/mobile really want to be
a subset of Gnome Desktop?  Or maybe adapt something from FSO, for
example?

2. Start working on development tools that are specific for
Gnome/mobile development.  Just as an example from top of my head, it
would be nice if it was made easier to setup a Xephyr based emulation
of certain devices.  I know emulators are not pixel perfect and
performance is nowhere close to that of the device, but it still gives
you some feel of the UI and as a free software developer I don't have
money to buy those devices.  Or collaborate with FSO / OpenMoko to
create and SDK that would be as easy to get started with as that of
Android's.

3. Start specifying how apps are expected to behave on Gnome/mobile
platform.  E.g. application life cycle; resource preservation; network
usage (always online or sometimes offline).  I think platform should
dictate things like that.

> 
> And today:
> 7. How do you perceive Gnome/mobile today? What is missing? What is too
> much? What is / could be Gnome/mobile's first priority goal? And second?
> 

As I wrote above, the platform needs to be made into something
relevant.  Currently app developers won't be interested due to lack of
APIs (one needs to look at specific platforms).  Platform developers
(FSO / Maemo / ...) won't be interested because there's so much more
that needs to go into a real platform, GM becomes a tiny corner in it.

> 
> Technically:
> 8. What do you think should qualify a platform for being a Gnome/mobile
> platform? A specific set of components used? If yes, which components?
> 

Yes, a specific set of components.  Although, some of the components
could be missing from some specific device, e.g. due to lack of
hardware.

In addition to those listed on the home page, Gnome/mobile needs
components at least for location awareness and camera.

> 
> 9. Or should there be a formal qualification process? If yes, what would
> be your idea about it? If not, why not?
> 

I think GM can get away without formal process if the mandatory
components are specified.  But the list of components needs to be more
comprehensive.

> 
> 10. What should be the technology goals of Gnome/mobile? Like creating a
> toolbox rather than a product? Or collaboration and information
> infrastructure rather than a development project?
> 

I think Gnome/mobile should be a development project in the sence that
it would gather together suitable components, and would have
deliverables in the form of source code (like it does now).

But I think GM should not start developing its own components.
Rather, collaborate with other projects to bring Gnome technologies
into them.

> 
> Organisation:
> 11. At the moment the Gnome/mobile group is a pretty loose group,
> everyone interested is welcome and can at once participate. Would you
> like to see this a little more formally structured? Like a formal
> membership, application process, levels of membership, voting processes,
> etc.? Or would like to see it grow as is, a group connected by ideas and
> consensus rather than rules? Other ideas?
> 

I don't see a need for formality.  Then again, I'm an app developer
and I don't know how to best get to the goals that Gnome/mobile has.

> 
> Comments:
> 11. Anything else? Did we forget something? Any additional comments?
> Thoughts?
>