I can see both sides to this one. There's a very fine line involved.

And before I expand on that, let me say this: over a year ago I had the wonderful opportunity to meet qgil in person. He was a very gracious host and took time out to show me around his work center.

But at first he was resistant to the idea of sharing much information here, which I did not understand at the time but eventually came to understand that time (or timing) was the point: given the sensitive nature of this still-not-completely-established commericial/open source hybrid business model, communication had to develop much more slowly than anyone here wanted-- me definitely included.

But to his credit, Quim eventually accepted my suggestion, joined the community, braced himself for a virtual backlash, and started engaging.

No one was happier than I.

But as his involvement expanded here and more was revealed, we quickly got past the 80% that Nokia could relatively easily reveal and into the 20% that is either going to be tough or impossible to divulge. I think most can understand where I'm coming from with that.

However, that said-- I still believe Nokia as a corporate entity dabbling in open source operating systems (which is now including S60) SHOULD offer a very high level roadmap as I described before. IMO, that's essential for continued community developer engagement.

Peter, ragnar, Quim, take this to heart (and I'm sure you already get it): continual developer interest maintenance is absolutely essential for not just software survival but hardware as well. If very large software/hardware release gaps are allowed to persist, and become the norm, the products will lose momentum and developer interest will shift elsewhere.

After all, what did all these talented guys do before internet tablets?