On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric Luehrsen wrote:
For example, rule (7) says all votes and decisions will be public but it lacks a formal expression that some decisions (intermediate term) need confidentiality. How do you handle bidding for services or inquiries by sponsors? "Time Limited Confidentiality" is a necessity but uncovered by the rules it becomes what we call in process engineering "hidden factory." It erodes the value of the rule and evolves into an excuse to ignore the rule.
I don't see any reason why they can't wait until they have such a decision to make before they set rules for secret decisions.
For example, rule (10) contentious email clause could be dealt with maybe if rule (12) had more details and more teeth. What if rule (12) put a higher order of behavioral expectations on voting members. Would that permit personally named email accounts with the project domain to be given for the purpose of representing the project in upstream commits? What if a new rule was added that all email between the project and outside individuals or organizations is cc: to an archive? This archive would be made public, only redacting unfinished business for short time as I mentioned for updates to rule (7). Would this calm people down?
As I understand things, your proposals undermine the purpose of rule 10. They specifically do not want people submitting things to upstream projects under the name of the project, they want such submissions to be by the individual without involving the project.
There should be no difference between the submission to an upstream project between submitting it as da...@lang.hm and david.l...@openwrt.org, so why imply that there is a difference by handing out @openwrt.org addresses.
This is one of the things that caused the fork, so such addresses are not to be used.
The remerge negotiations aren't doing a hard cut-off for the existing @openwrt.org addresses, but are drastically reducing their utility. They will either be simple redirects to the person's personal address (with no outgoing use of the @openwrt address), or they will be mailing lists that any voting member can subscribe to (I've seen both mentioned, I am not sure the exact details). But in any case, no new @openwrt addresses will be given out to people, and those who have them will not be using them as source addresses for performing acts on behalf of openwrt.
David Lang _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
