Hi,
in my opinion Uze/Samsung captured the current problem very well as
* current IoTivity development is not well aligned with OCF
* OCF requires an easy to use solution with documentation
* OCF requires product quality code for released versions and proof of
concept code for draft specifications
* not enough developers participating in IoTivity (we even have not one
maintainer per component in Jira!!!)
Thiago - could you please explain, why you think that moving to a more detailed
structure as seen in your proposal would help with any of these points?
We currently may have about a total of 15 active developers/maintainers in
IoTivity (at least seen on this list).
Spreading these out on all the roles as defined in the proposal on project
leaders, maintainers and
technical leaders and so on seems to introduce quite an overhead.
This said, I lean much more to the proposal from Samsung. The four blocks
mentioned as subcommittees look good,
and these should be represented in OCF as well. We need the tight OCF relation
with IoTivity,
because OCF is mainly funding the project and OCF is the reason why IoTivity
code is/will be used in products.
However I do not understand the differentiation between projects and
subcommittees on slide 4.
Will the projects each have a project leader/maintainer (as of today) - and
each of the subcommittees will have a
?committee leader?/chair - so the project governance is done by 13 people (as
seen on slide 4)?
Also - the first three subcommittee blocks make immediate sense, as these
define building blocks/tasks for any software development,
but what is meant by ?Smart Home? and ?Industrial?. These two do not seem to
really fit here?
thanks
Christian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.iotivity.org/pipermail/iotivity-dev/attachments/20170425/310c5a93/attachment.html>
