>>Android needs open governance, right now it's Google's project and they control it as they see fit.
Why? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious. What would be the benefits?
Under Google's governance Android has become quite powerful and a true competitor to the iPhone. Something that no other company has been able to achieve with their own phones/OS. Microsoft, RIM, Palm/HP, Nokia; they've all failed so far.
At this moment it is not broken so why fix it?
I don't quite buy your argument. Sure, nobody is forced to use Android, in the same way PC manufacturers aren't forced to ship PCs with Windows installed.
You're making it sound like there are compelling alternatives to Android for a handset maker, but really there's not.
Sure, Amazon can fork Android, but can they contribute to Google's version? Can they collaborate and make decisions together? Not under this governance model...
Can just add some software to Linux? I don't think so - Linus calls the shots... I don't think an OSS project where everybody could contribute would work.
Yes. Pretty much anyone can contribute. Your patches just have to go trough an approval process. It is complex and takes time, but of course it is possible.
If the patch contains good code/documentation, doesn't break anything, works as supposed to do and is relevant to the direction of the project, I can't see why it wouldn't be approved.
If my patch conflicts with the direction of the project, I can just fork.
And no, I never tried because don't have a device running 2.x. I could try contributing to Honeycomb (since I happen to own a Xoom). Is there any repo I could clone containing Honeycomb? (honest question)
Why? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm truly curious. What would be the benefits?
Under Google's governance Android has become quite powerful and a true competitor to the iPhone. Something that no other company has been able to achieve with their own phones/OS. Microsoft, RIM, Palm/HP, Nokia; they've all failed so far. At this moment it is not broken so why fix it?