26 Feb
2004
26 Feb
'04
11:30 a.m.
On Thursday 26 February 2004 09:37, Daniel James wrote:
Rather than have centralised co-ordination, you mean?
Sounds like a
bit of a free-for-all. I think a donor company would rather be
working with a single contact who would take responsibility for the
hardware.
But coordinating between counties and projects is a lot of work for a single
person. What about saying that each project/company uses their nominated
person on the board of LinuxAudio to do all this discussion? Then everyone
involved is recognised and seen as being "responsible" at least.
Here I think the consortium could have a role in
making the hardware
to the people who could make the best use of it.
Perhaps instead of rotating the hardware, we could set up a scheme
whereby one developer or site 'X' agrees to be the maintainer of
support for device 'Y', and other developers who want to test their
software on 'Y' have to work with 'X'. That way, 'X' gets the
benefit
of having the loan hardware on-site, but also has the responsibility
to work with the community on support for it.
I don't think you'll get much joy trying to impose a structure on how either
the hardware or the work could be distributed. It's up to people to work as
they feel like it - if they can get their hands on the hardware then and
there then that'll help it out. I think the approach here has to be
pragmatic as in many cases if the interested developer wants some hardware
they can always buy it if they can afford it or just approach the vendor
directly for loan stuff. It'd be nice if LinuxAudio.org helped with this
process rather than tried to impose a regime to it - that's probably not what
you meant but that's what it sounds like.
R