Dave,

Before I get into it, I'd just like to thank you for your reasoned, and well written reply. I don't fully agree with you, but well, life would be boring if we all got on.

The 'open' there that I was using was that the code is available, as a whole, which, as far as I know is being stuck to fairly rigorously for all released components so far.

How open MeeGo is in practice (that is, as an organisation, and as a whole) is a bit of a different story, and not one I want to pass judgement on yet. But if they prove to not be living up to the speak, then by all means.

Personally, I see no problem with this idea. If you want to use the naming, then you have to avoid fragmentation, and be as identical as possible. If you don't want to use the naming, do whatever you want. That sounds like a sensible enough aim.

What I don't agree with in that respect is that the compliance story isn't open to community input, despite repeated requests, from people like yourselves, and I think that deserves a lot more scrutiny.

Have you brought this up somewhere? Not specifically this decision, but this issue, that architecture choices should probably be explained and reasoned?

Not that it may make much difference *at this stage*, because as you rightfully point out, there are a few people making the decisions - but process would be nice.

And yes, I fully believe that there is probably room for political manoeuvring in those discussions. To believe that politics has no place whatsoever in technical decisions is a pretty naive thing, so I won't go there.

The development for that release was done entirely behind closed doors. That the components in it weren't chosen by the community should not come as a surprise.

That Banshee and Evolution are included should also be no surprise, given the Netbook release is pretty much Moblin with a few bits tacked on, just like I rather expect the handset release will be a new Maemo frontend+apps tacked on to a frankenstein Moblinish base.

For the record, I'd also like to say that I think this is - if anything - a good thing. It means that hopefully all isn't lost with regards to toolkit co-compatibility and we're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Qt is great, and it's nice to have an officially sanctioned platform for reasons of educating newer developers, etc - but choice is a powerful and important thing. (and if anything, I'm biased, by beng both a hobby and professional Qt guy)

Though I think it's unrealistic to expect documentation on the choices made for 1.0 (realistically, a lot of that is going to be "this is working so let's use it" and so on), I'd say this is something that needs discussing, through the proper channels - not here. Not sure what they are for this kind of case, though. dev list? TSG?