Hi, On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Jeremy Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > openrisc.net is owned by Jonas Bonn. He is the guy responsible for > OpenRISC Linux. Its ongoing development depends on how much time he has > available for it and the degree to which he wishes to stay involved.
(To be fair: I have not discussed this with Jonas yet, so he might be against this - but the idea is still valid.) Which is part of the problem. I personally hate to be in the critical path of stuff, and I believe in empowering people. Having the website's DNS point to GitHub's Pages would allow anyone with commit access to github.com/openrisc to update the website themselves = less time spent doing administrative stuff. I didn't know ORSoC owned openrisc.org - that would be very nice to use. I'll shoot the registar an email. > Now you will be the person running everything. See previous comment, initially I'll be the 'guru' of the system, but since this allows self-service changes with only a pull request signoff to deploy it - I think this is _less_ work for all parties. > Ownership by individuals accountable only to themselves is never > sustainable, not matter how pure and saintly that individual is. Which > is why every major FOSS project in the world has some form of community > foundation with a clear legal framework. Such a framework is essential > if you ever want any funding. Maybe, I have too little experience here. But I don't think this is relevant to this move. The GitHub OpenRISC organization has 6 owners who are all equal when it comes to permissions. > openrisc.org is owned by ORSoC AB, which was originally a general > electronics design house focusing on OpenRISC based developments. KNC > Miner is a JV with Kennemar & Cole AB to build bitcoin mining hardware, > and from what I understand ORSoC is putting its effort exclusively into > this now. > > You should contact Marcus Erlandsson, CTO and founder (of both > organizations). In the first instance try KNC Miner's number +46 8559 > 253 20. Why should I need to? Where I stand it's clear that they have made their choice. If the company thinks it's OK to alienate the community and just wipe their existence off the planet, I'm not going to chase them. > Why do they need to remain anonymous - surely there is nothing to hide > about want a reorganization of a community project. The major > contributors (people like Julius, Stefan, Olof etc) have never been shy > of making their views well known. I don't know, and I don't question - that these people who contacted me feel they want to do a +1 anonymously speaks a bit on how political and non-pragmatic this community can be at times. > The current approach is working reasonably well. By which measurement? Why settle and stop improving? > I'm just trying to stop > another screw up that loses us good contributors yet again. I'll just > stand back and hope the fallout won't be so bad this time. Again, I don't see how this would be the case. Contributions happen to our github projects, to the wiki and to the arch spec. If you want to change the portal page on the wiki, this would require a bit more effort (this page has had 2 edits over the last 6 months btw). If you want to submit a new arch specification that would be to github instead of SVN. > But if it would help, do feel free to discuss with me by telephone. I feel like email fits the purpose better and allows everyone to follow our discussions and jump in if they feel like it. Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
