Hi Paul,
On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote:
Although being someone that’s merely following the developments of this
project, I want to comment on what’s going on in this thread.
Some of my remarks may strike as not very positive, so please do not take any
of those personal.
s.y.
Paul
Op 10 mei 2017, om 11:31 heeft Imre Kaloz <ka...@openwrt.org> het volgende
geschreven:
On 2017-05-10 00:52, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
[cut]
*) SPI
- TBD post remerge
I'd prefer to tackle this first.
Before the merge non-OpenWrt people are outsiders from both SPI's and the
world's PoV. After the merge everyone can vote on these topics.
This does not feel right. The desire to have the ownership of the domain being
properly handled before bringing the project - which currently is LEDE - back
under the openwrt domain name is very reasonable. The fork this have a cause.
If I’ve misunderstood Imre’s position, please tell.
You did :) If you take a look at the original mail from John, that "TBD"
is there for SPI, the handling of the domain is before that point. This
part is about how to pick and elect the liaisons, as it has been
explained before in John's reply to Rafal.
The SPI has a relationship with OpenWrt, not LEDE. When LEDE devs are
OpenWrt devs, they "become visible" for SPI. It's matter of steps you
have to do in order, nothing else.
- start pushing to the openwrt organisation
By force-overwriting the history of openwrt/openwrt ?
No one said it won't cause a bit of pain, but would ease the transition on the
long run.
Seems the solution to un-fork may cause more problems than it solves. And all
that for just the name ?
I don't think rebasing your changes is that much of a pain, and this
only causes a hiccup for people who are using the OpenWrt git tree for
real.
- update the landing page to have the same look & feel as the current
openwrt landing page
Why?
Well, we're not wikipedia so it doesn't hurt if the site has at least some CSS
;)
For all value that OWRT was worth, its website's looks weren’t among them.
I didn't say it looks awesome - but in 2017 we shouldn't optimize for
lynx I think. Actually creating a common look and feel between services
(and SSO for them) would make things look way better IMHO.
*) email accounts
- currently there are around ~20 active openwrt.org mail accounts
- turn all the webmaster@, hostmaster@, ... accounts into aliases that
anyone with voting rights can be subscribed to
- ask those people that are no longer active to voluntarily give up
their accounts
- mail addresses may under no conditions be used for any personal
business, consultancy, applying for jobs, ... purposes
According to the rules there shall be no personal mail accounts at all.
There should be plenty of time until the actual remerge to fade them out
and to set up forwarding elsewhere.
I hope you agree that a merge means both sides are adopting and need to find
some common ground.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ...
I think I've lost you here. In my point of view common ground !=
everyone looses. This is a "non-zero-sum game".
Some of the rules has to change, and as we've discussed it with John, one might
want to send upstream submissions to make OpenWrt show up there like other
projects do. You might also want to open a private conversation between the
upstream platform / driver maintainer where having a project email address
could be useful. Personally I only use my owrt address for FOSS related stuff
and as far as I know, most people do the same.
LEDE has a rule which says: "Committers being unreachable for three months in a row
shall get their commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability to do
majority votes among the remaining active committers." This rule is clearly
problematic if you would like to extend voting rights to non-coders which I believe we
want to do. Someone maintaining the wiki or the forums might never commit anything, but
we do want to get their opinion heard. In the past we didn't make it easy for the
community to interfere with decisions, I doubt we want to make the same mistake again.
Intentions matter. Nonetheless a rule that tries to prevent that
non-cooperation can be used as a way to obstruct, should not be set aside by
intentions; this rule may very well be a sleeping rule that, unhoped for, might
just be needed when lesser intentions become a problem. While on the other hand
in the interpretation of a rule, its intention is very relevant and helps to
apply it to cases that may seem not to fit when interpreted in a (to) narrowly
strict way.
Intentions do matter until you've created the rules, after that the
rules might not serve the original intentions. Anyways, I only wanted to
point out that the current LEDE rules aren't perfect either. Don't get
me wrong, the OpenWrt ones [1] [2] weren't perfect either, specially
because the majority didn't care about them.
Imre
[1] https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules
[2] https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/CommitPolicy
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
