On Dec 14, 2017 2:44 PM, "Heldt-Sheller, Nathan" < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Gregg, “We” is the people who are stepping up and pitching in to make it better… if you’re interested in helping, please step up! I took my time to create a presentation to try to help. And I appreciate that. Except: it's embargoed. Making something that's only available to OCF members is fine, but I do not see how it helps Iotivity (those of us who are not OCF members). I've got tons of stuff (docs) that could help Iotivity but I'm putting it on OpenOCF (for now) mainly because iotivity is such a mess. And it is not merely a doc problem. The deeper problem is that Iotivity is not genuinely open. You never know when something is going to be added or deprecated because one of the corporate sponsors decides it should be so, without public discussion. Too much happens behind the curtain. Others are working to update the IoTivity Wiki, but there’s a lot of content there… maybe you can spend some time going over the IoTivity Wiki and flagging documentation that is out of date, just as an example? I would redo the entire wiki if I thought it would make a difference. But it is obvious that there is a major disconnect between the software and the wiki. The devs don't give a shit, why should I? Thanks, Nathan *From:* Gregg Reynolds [mailto:[email protected]] *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 12:35 PM *To:* Heldt-Sheller, Nathan <[email protected]> *Cc:* iotivity-dev <[email protected]> *Subject:* Re: [dev] Relevant Security documentation On Dec 14, 2017 2:11 PM, "Heldt-Sheller, Nathan" < [email protected]> wrote: ... And I **totally** agree that this is all too hard to find; we’re working on it! Who is "we"? Maybe "we" should work on making it easier for non-we to contribute. The way you've phrased it makes it sound like this is definitely not an open project.
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
