timop.harkonen at gmail
Apr 27, 2012, 1:47 AM
Post #54 of 61
27. huhtikuuta 2012 5.20 robert bauer <nybauer [at] gmail> kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Timo Härkönen <timop.harkonen [at] gmail>wrote:
>> 26. huhtikuuta 2012 16.53 Iván Gálvez Junquera <ivgalvez [at] gmail>kirjoitti:
>> I completely agree about coordinating with Council and the number of
>>> devices as proposed by Rob and Cosimo.
>> I agree on the device amount for the competition but didn't see anyone
>> proposing an amount for the seeding itself. So I'm proposing 80 to get that
>> discussion going. That would make the total number of devices 100. I think
>> the seeding should be done like proposed earlier by providing a wiki page
>> where people willing to get one need to add their details including past,
>> current and planned contributions to the community. So pretty similar thing
>> that Quim & co. used with the meego developer device program. And then the
>> council decides who gets a device.
>> In any case I'd like to see the requirements for getting a device clearly
>> documented (after there's a consensus for them) to the same wiki page. So
>> I'd ask for Maemo.org user name with link to the profile, description of
>> contributions with links to those and summary of future plans. So my main
>> requirerement would be contributions that benefit the community. There's a
>> lot of stuff that be contributed to the community and they should all have
>> some weight. Contributions can be applications, other development, QA,
>> helping people, communications (think about what people behind the weekly
>> news are doing) or something else.
> Basically agreed. I'd like to see future plans given minimal weight -
> it's hard to gauge promises, etc, and IMO these should be viewed as
> unexpected rewards/thank yous for those who have served the community. I
> think the time period should be the last year or two so someone who left
> the community can't claim a device based on service they did three years
> ago. If we could do it (and I know it's not feasible), I'd use karma over
> the last 1-2 years as a rough starting point (maybe drop tmo posts, but not
> tmo thanks) And by community contributions, we should clarify we mean the
> maemo.org community (no disrespect to Mer/nemo/qt/meego/etc). And I
> think we should allow nomination of others instead of just
> self-nominations, and community members to give +1s to the nominations of
> others on the wiki page. (mindful to determine that people can't receive a
> second device if they already have one)
I see your point but I wouldn't go for the unexpected reward thing. I'm
more into looking into what is going on now since I see this something
that's one purpose is to activate the community. Sure it would be nice to
say to a lot of people "thank you" for their past contributions but I don't
see it benefiting the community that much.. Although I'd guess that at the
end of day it's a case by case thing where multiple things affect the
decision so we can't be too strict on the requirements.
Naturally the maemo.org community is the target group here. Althought some
people have been doing things in all of the mentioned communities. It
shouldn't be seen as a negative thing from maemo.org's pow. Many things
done in the other communities benefit maemo.org as well. But yeah. I agree
that the things done directly within maemo.org context are the ones that
I don't have too strong opinion on letting people nominate others even
though I'd just let people nominate only themselves. imo it makes this
simpler and doesn't turn this into a popularity contest - even though
popularity of a project, etc. is most likely something that the council
takes into account when picking the receipients. Besides requiring self
nominations gives an indication that one actually needs/wants a device.
>> This might sound like self evident but when it comes to free gadgets the
>> rules need to be very clear and the instance who has the final say clearly
>> definded (the council). And I also agree that in no situation should one
>> single person be able to make the call on who gets a device or not.
>> Therefore I'd wait until the new council has been elected (no disrepect to
>> Rob intended).
> I agree we should let new council (or a committee they select) decide who
> gets a device, but not wait on determining the criteria to be applied so we
> can meet the deadline qgil has requested.
yep. one rule came to my mind: requirement for maemo.org account created
before the 04/2010 and some minimun karma requirement (for example 100)?
Anyway. I'd keep the requirement/rules as simple as possible and give the
council a bit flexibility on picking the receipients. My version of the
rules (currently) would be:
- maemo.org account created before 4/2012
- karma at least 100
- Not for commercial / closed source developers
- Entry to a wiki page containing the following details:
-> link to maemo.org user profile
-> Short summary of past and ongoing contributions (applications,
testing, etc.) with links to back up the claims.
-> Short summary of furure plans (if any)
- deadline for requests - xx.yy.2012 23:59 (after that the page is set to
That should imo give enough info to the council to able to start evaluating
> maemo-community mailing list
> maemo-community [at] maemo