Possibility of help for a partially supported device?

[Olivier Cailloux <olivier.cailloux@dauphine.fr>]

Dear list,

The UVC driver web site (http://www.ideasonboard.org/uvc/faq/) reports
that when “I have an UVC webcam but it is not working”, I should follow
a given sequence of actions and post the resulting findings to this
list.

I have an UVC webcam but it is not working. And I (think I)
followed the instructions and posted the result (
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg177756.html) to this list
(the faq points to the linux-uvc-devel mailing list, but I know from
another post that this one is the right list, 
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-media/msg177462.html). I got no
reply.

Let me state clearly that I do not believe that I have any right to
complain about this. I am not paying for a service, open source
developers have jobs and lives and more feature requests than time, and
so on. This post is a interrogation, not a complaint.

First, I wonder if, despite having tried to follow instructions, I
would have missed some important information in my earlier post, that
would discourage answering it. If so, I hope someone will be kind
enough to answer this meta-request about how I should have better
phrased my initial post.

Second, I wonder if perhaps it is a general pattern that readers on
this list do not have enough time and interest to consider such kind of
requests (as suggested by the existence of similar questions I have
found, linked in my previous post, that also went unanswered). Perhaps
this depends on the age or popularity of the device, or other factors
that I ignore but that I suspect some developers here may know. If such
a general pattern is known, may I suggest that the wording on the UVC
driver FAQ be modified, so as to inform readers (if vaguely) of the a
priori chance that their request be considered? (Perhaps specifying the
cases which tend to be considered and those that tend to be ignored.)
This would save everybody’s time.

Third, I wonder if the “Hercules Dualpix Chat and Show” Webcam
(06f8:3007) should be granted a footnote pointing to my previous post
in the table on the website (http://www.ideasonboard.org/uvc/)? Unless
a single report of defect is not considered sufficient to raise serious
suspicion.

Sincerely,
-- 
Olivier