On Monday, 17 April 2017 21:47:57 PDT Dwarkaprasad Dayama wrote: > Hi IoTivity dev community members, > > As shared by Thiago, I am sharing another suggestion for reorg behalf of > Uze. Feedback is welcome to make better open source project organization.
Hi Dwarka I was hoping others would have replied by now... no such luck. So I will. I agree we should expand IoTivity activities. Adding more verticals is an aspect you know Intel supports, and I personally think that will add value to the project. The more we support out of the box, the more likely we are to convince others that IoTivity (and by extension OCF) is a good solution for their problem domains. I also think that reaching up to the Cloud and showing what we can do is a good idea. From our research, it looks our competitors -- especially in the Industrial segment -- have a rocky path to reaching there, as their models are not designed for the kind of RESTful communication that the Cloud developers are used to. I will add that Intel is interested also in Fog computing, so making this a hybrid Cloud/Fog makes sense. On the details of the proposal (slide 4): 1) can you provide a little more detail on the projects? What activities and subsystems do you expect to be inside each? The distinction between Device Framework and Device Platform escapes me. 2) the subcommittees look fine and they should all exist. Event and Branding is not a technical task, but more on that see the next email (replying to Uze). On the communication (slide 5): I think the TSC and specifically the TSC Chair should be heard and taken into account in OCF. We'll have to convince them of that. But I don't think mirroring a structure is a good idea -- that's been a source of confusion in the past, with the roles blurred and IoTivity decisions being made in OCF phone calls and meetings. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
