[Battlemesh] Wireless Battle Mesh v5 - Next steps
hakais at gmail.com
Thu Sep 22 14:20:52 CEST 2011
I'm also a newcomer at WBM, the last one was my first one. Before I went
there, I thought that this was an event where the main objective was to test
mesh protocols and put them in battle. But after, my thought was that this
is an event to meet people and speak about some geek topics.
For me that is good, but maybe to push the original objective a little more
would be nice.
One of the main restrictions I found is the hardware. Fonera is a very
limited device and when you are running 4 or 5 protocols, it can do some
strange things, and the tests become unreliable. Maybe we should put some
efforts in to have another kind of hardware, we can find some sponsors who
can give us some hardware. Or maybe we can put a special tax for spending on
hardware (10€ per person = 600€ = 10 new devices).
About the sponsors searching, what can we offer them?
2011/9/22 Marek Lindner <lindner_marek at yahoo.de>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2011 06:52:22 Andrew Parnell wrote:
> > One thing I would like to suggest is to have a more formalised
> > arrangement for the test network that we will use for WBMv5. Though I
> > am a newcomer to this, one thing that I couldn't help but notice was
> > that many of us were there for 5-6 days before we were actually
> > deploying the Foneras and building a test mesh. It seems that this is
> > not the most efficient use of our time. Perhaps we could find a way
> > to require that each team/group who wishes to submit code for testing
> > must have this ready to go /before/ the event begins. This way, a
> > firmware image can be prepared in advance, and once people begin to
> > arrive, we can set up the mesh immediately and have much more time for
> > testing. We would probably also want to have another deadline(s)
> > sometime in the middle of the event perhaps, where updates can be
> > provided and a new firmware image(s) compiled. Hopefully this would
> > allow us to use the short time we have to the maximum benefit, and we
> > could really get some good tests/statistics compiled as a result.
> It is not that we did not try in the past. We had deadlines / teams / etc
> clearly lacked direction imposed by a "test leader" or "test group". The
> misery starts when you ask the question: What are we going to test ? You
> find people chiming in that are fairly silent most of the time but feel
> have to "defend" their protocol.
> In short: As long as we don't have someone (preferrably a protocol neutral
> person) who takes matters into his hands I don't expect any improvement
> year either.
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Battlemesh