Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
Must...remember...don't feed the trolls (or their close cousins the vocal unrealistic idealogues). ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:58:19AM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > Oswald wrote: > > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the > > lede infrastructure and participation was technically open from the > > start, but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it > > makes the whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke. > > we already learned that the way we started the project was far less than > ideal and apparently left people in the dust and I think others involved > agree that it could've handled in better, less hastily way. > good. > My personal hope (maybe I'm too naive) was that we invite further > people and ask them to shape the project to their liking. > that's a reasonable hope only if you manage to present a consistent and credible story. > So far the criticism seems to circle around the fact that we somehow > have no credibility to claim openness because we secretly prepared the > project. > *of course* you have a credibility problem because of that. people tend to be a tad peeved by hypocricy (cf. U.S. (and allies) foreign policy re democracy, terrorism, and whatnot). > I follow that logic and agree with that, it is a screw up, > probably due to the fact that nobody knew how to handle things in a > better way. > that's where things start to look a bit weird. you're a dozen grown-up people, some with families, some with a decade of experience in the project. yet, nobody knew better? everybody failed at some basic perspective taking? it seems that you just didn't try very hard. that's consistent with the observation that you apparently managed to rationalize yourself into believing that what you did is somehow not a hostile fork. > For rebooting the reboot though the project will need input from the > wider audience. We cannot "reboot a reboot" if any feedback we get is > accusations of being opaque or being a joke. > i think you're getting a lot more input that that. and for the record, i called neither you nor your project a joke, if that's what you meant. > What we need is agenda items getting proposed, people stepping forward > offering to volunteer not only in technical but also in policy matters. > you obviously have that already. though you unnecessarily limited the circle of possible supporters. > > that doesn't mean starting from scratch, but instead openly and > > forcibly pushing your alternatives within openwrt - as imre pointed > > out, you have quite some real power. > > So you mean we should exercise our power and force a rebuild of the > OpenWrt project to match our current vision of a project? > yes. if you think that openwrt has arrived at a dead end, but want it to move on, that's the reasonable thing to do, isn't it? > What should we actually demand? > that's something you need to know. > What do we do if those demands are not accepted or being acted on? > then you can still continue with the fork. > On whose behalf should we make those demands? > yourself, as a significant fraction of the currently active contributors. those who do the work decide, and that also needs to extend to the "meta" issues. > If that is what the community wants then I'd like to see a broad > consensus first > of course you need consensus. that's why you need to state the problems and propose solutions ... publicly. > and then someone not being part of the old "core developer" team > should take the lead in negotiating with the OpenWrt project. > for the record, you just implied that you're not part of the openwrt project any more. that might very well reflect reality (and it certainly does from the perspective of some people), but it's inconsistent with the messaging i've seen so far. > Imho Johns, Felix and my relation to OpenWrt is tainted by > now and I guess nobody would believe us acting objectively and > neutral. > that argumentation makes no sense. there is no-one else but you who'd care (enough). and of course you're not neutral, by definition. that's not something that can be reasonably held against you. as for objectivity, you "only" need to avoid coming off as protecting your egos or your investments into the fork as such. > > however controversial such an approach might be, it cannot possibly > > do more damage to the community than this hostile fork does. > > I am not sure about that. Having public power fights without clear > mandates or any kind of consensus can also just destroy the entire > project, all involved peoples credibility and leave the community with > a defunct project in the end as well. > you're trying to both have the cake and eat it. you can't claim openness, yet declare some very pertinent matters off-limits for open discussion. in the worst case, you'll prove to the wider community that you were right to fork. hint: work hard to not make that your objective. > > regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any > > kind of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. - as > > others po
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
The "niceness rules" sets up a base to avoid a toxic community and don't let toxic people in. In essence, they come in and they spread their way. I'm not in the lede-adm list, nor am I a developer, but I'm watching since before the fork. I'm seeing progress and the will to be more open minded with new people. That's what made me try and include myself in the community and learn about buildroot and try harder to contribute to something that helped me a lot with my home network. I'm a power user, I guess. Just keep that mindset, don't be afraid to admit errors (We're all humans, right right ?) and everything will flow organically. Thanks for listening and sorry to barge in. 2016-05-20 7:48 GMT-03:00 Daniel Curran-Dickinson : > On 16-05-20 06:36 AM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: >> >> Sorry, I got on this tack because if his hostile approach to the LEDE >> project. If he had had a constructive approach I wouldn't likely have >> gotten off track this way. Still as Bjorn reminded me, we should be >> nice to each other, even when the other person isn't nice to us. > > I also tend to get irritated by things like the side sentence that imply > great knowledge without actually giving concrete information. > > That kind of thing is a pet peeve of mine that I have to work on not > getting worked up about. > > Regards, > > Daniel > > ___ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev -- Att. Gabriel Mazzocato ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 06:36 AM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > > Sorry, I got on this tack because if his hostile approach to the LEDE > project. If he had had a constructive approach I wouldn't likely have > gotten off track this way. Still as Bjorn reminded me, we should be > nice to each other, even when the other person isn't nice to us. I also tend to get irritated by things like the side sentence that imply great knowledge without actually giving concrete information. That kind of thing is a pet peeve of mine that I have to work on not getting worked up about. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 05:41 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote: > Daniel Curran-Dickinson writes: > >> I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was), > > who? me? No, grumpy is just my default mode. I need to work on that. > But I never rant without caring, so "hostile" is not correct. > > Anyway, I want to apologize for breaking the "Be nice to eachother" > rule. There is no excuse, so I'm not going to make up any. It was a > daft thing to do. Sorry. Me too. I am *trying* to work on that but it was actually Oswald's extremely hostile email that got me off on this track. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 06:32 AM, Bruno Randolf wrote: >> The issue I have is not with the notion of transparency, but that that >> you imply that your particular view isn't just an opinion but based on >> experience, but then you turn around and say it's irrelevant whether the >> communities are open or not. >> >> You're not making sense in this respect. > > Come on Daniel, give him a break. > Sorry, I got on this tack because if his hostile approach to the LEDE project. If he had had a constructive approach I wouldn't likely have gotten off track this way. Still as Bjorn reminded me, we should be nice to each other, even when the other person isn't nice to us. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 20/05/16 11:22, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-20 05:44 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:13:37AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: >>> On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable. it's up to the reader to check my "creds" if they don't take my word. >>> >>> The problem is that you were using "big openly governed communities" to >>> suggest that you had experience in how successful openly governed >>> projects work. If that's not actually the case, then there is no point >>> to saying what you said, other than to try and *sound* like you know >>> something you don't. >>> >> how exactly is that not covered by what i just said? > > "this didn't imply anything in particular about how these communities are > run, or that lede should copy their modus opandi." > > You seem not to have meant this sentence the way I too it, which is as > turning around and saying KDE and/or Qt may or may not be open > communities, and that it was irrelevant whether they were or not. > > My point is that the only relevance to you saying you participate in > "*big* openly governed communities" is to imply that you know what a > successful openly governed community looks like. > > IF that is what you are saying then it is entirely relevant to look at > those communities to see what, if anything, from them applies. > > IF that is not what you are saying then that sentence is just puffery. > > I'm not saying someone has to be a member of such a community to have an > opinion, but you're implying that your opinion should be given weight > *because of* your participation in such a community, which is why > examining the claim is relevant, in addition to looking at the > communities and seeing what can be learned from them. > > The issue I have is not with the notion of transparency, but that that > you imply that your particular view isn't just an opinion but based on > experience, but then you turn around and say it's irrelevant whether the > communities are open or not. > > You're not making sense in this respect. Come on Daniel, give him a break. bruno ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 05:44 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:13:37AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: >> On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >>> the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my >>> impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable. >>> it's up to the reader to check my "creds" if they don't take my word. >> >> The problem is that you were using "big openly governed communities" to >> suggest that you had experience in how successful openly governed >> projects work. If that's not actually the case, then there is no point >> to saying what you said, other than to try and *sound* like you know >> something you don't. >> > how exactly is that not covered by what i just said? "this didn't imply anything in particular about how these communities are run, or that lede should copy their modus opandi." You seem not to have meant this sentence the way I too it, which is as turning around and saying KDE and/or Qt may or may not be open communities, and that it was irrelevant whether they were or not. My point is that the only relevance to you saying you participate in "*big* openly governed communities" is to imply that you know what a successful openly governed community looks like. IF that is what you are saying then it is entirely relevant to look at those communities to see what, if anything, from them applies. IF that is not what you are saying then that sentence is just puffery. I'm not saying someone has to be a member of such a community to have an opinion, but you're implying that your opinion should be given weight *because of* your participation in such a community, which is why examining the claim is relevant, in addition to looking at the communities and seeing what can be learned from them. The issue I have is not with the notion of transparency, but that that you imply that your particular view isn't just an opinion but based on experience, but then you turn around and say it's irrelevant whether the communities are open or not. You're not making sense in this respect. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:13:37AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > >> > > the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my > > impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable. > > it's up to the reader to check my "creds" if they don't take my word. > > this didn't imply anything in particular about how these communities are > > run, or that lede should copy their modus opandi. > > The problem is that you were using "big openly governed communities" to > suggest that you had experience in how successful openly governed > projects work. If that's not actually the case, then there is no point > to saying what you said, other than to try and *sound* like you know > something you don't. > how exactly is that not covered by what i just said? ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
Daniel Curran-Dickinson writes: > I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was), who? me? No, grumpy is just my default mode. I need to work on that. But I never rant without caring, so "hostile" is not correct. Anyway, I want to apologize for breaking the "Be nice to eachother" rule. There is no excuse, so I'm not going to make up any. It was a daft thing to do. Sorry. Thanks a lot for all the constructive feedback despite my error, which turned this into a very fruitful discussion after all. That's a very good example of the "Be nice to eachother" rule in pratice, having an extemely positive effect. As for the examples of open governance in other communities, I'd like to point to the Linux kernel. Not because that is a comparable project or perfect in any ways. But they do some very good things wrt governance policies. Remember that this is a project mostly managed by a small elite being paid full time to do just that, and with a dictator for life on the top. Not exactly open by default. Most of the high level plans and policies are nailed at a yearly summit, open only by invitation to a limited set of core developers. If they just did this "the natural way", then the rest of the community would just see the agenda and the resulting outcome, and maybe an input paper or two. But this is where they don't follow the stream, and instead are an example for all other open source communities: - The summit is announced to everybody (LKML): https://lwn.net/Articles/650226/ - Anyone with a topic of interest can nominate themselves, or be nominated by others. - All discussions of topics and nominations happen on the open and archived ksummit-discuss list, See for example: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2015-July/thread.html This really opens up a process which would otherwise appear as extremely closed. The LEDE project certainly does some things right, like announcing meetings on the lede-adm list and keeping the draft agenda public while it is discussed. But it would do a lot better if the discussion of the agenda happened on the mailing list too, instead of just being keyword edits on a wiki. If this was complemented with an explicit invitation for anyone to propose topics, with the possibility of being invited to participate in the meeting, then I think the process around the meetings would appear much more open. Not that I believe it would actually change much. Both topics and participants would likely be the same. But *if* there were some outsider with an interesting topic, then they would easier see how to get it discussed. I realize that this is just about appearance. I know that anyone can make their case e.g. here, and if it is considered an interesting topic for a meeting then it will be. I note for example, that the question I asked about copyright on makefiles ended up in the agenda of the last meeting. But I don't think this is obvious enough to the whole community. Statements like "Only committers should change the agenda and participate in the doodle poll" does not help. Of course there need to be some restrictions on who can add topics to the agenda. But you should not need to restrict who can propose a topic. If the invitation requested topics on the list, and a "program committee" turned them into an agenda, then you would not have to have any restrictions on participation. Bjørn ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
Hi Oswald, > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the > lede infrastructure and participation was technically open from the > start, but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it > makes the whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke. we already learned that the way we started the project was far less than ideal and apparently left people in the dust and I think others involved agree that it could've handled in better, less hastily way. My personal hope (maybe I'm too naive) was that we invite further people and ask them to shape the project to their liking. So far the criticism seems to circle around the fact that we somehow have no credibility to claim openness because we secretly prepared the project. I follow that logic and agree with that, it is a screw up, probably due to the fact that nobody knew how to handle things in a better way. > the one thing that will make a big difference is plainly and openly > admitting the screwup ... and rebooting your "reboot". I see no problem with the admitting screw up part - at least not with apologizing about *how* things went. For rebooting the reboot though the project will need input from the wider audience. We cannot "reboot a reboot" if any feedback we get is accusations of being opaque or being a joke. What we need is agenda items getting proposed, people stepping forward offering to volunteer not only in technical but also in policy matters. > that doesn't mean starting from scratch, but instead openly and > forcibly pushing your alternatives within openwrt - as imre pointed > out, you have quite some real power. So you mean we should exercise our power and force a rebuild of the OpenWrt project to match our current vision of a project? What should we actually demand? What do we do if those demands are not accepted or being acted on? On whose behalf should we make those demands? If that is what the community wants then I'd like to see a broad consensus first and then someone not being part of the old "core developer" team should take the lead in negotiating with the OpenWrt project. Imho Johns, Felix and my relation to OpenWrt is tainted by now and I guess nobody would believe us acting objectively and neutral. > however controversial such an approach might be, it cannot possibly > do more damage to the community than this hostile fork does. I am not sure about that. Having public power fights without clear mandates or any kind of consensus can also just destroy the entire project, all involved peoples credibility and leave the community with a defunct project in the end as well. > regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any > kind of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. - as > others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the whole > concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about > non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch > it. It has been proposed to consider using http://liquidfeedback.org/ to implement the voting part. As for getting rid of meetings and discussing any decision processes on the list, we can try that - its just not as realtime as we're used to. > - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and > needs to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a > problem. probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the > first place. I agree, problem here is just that things get blown out of proportion. It is not as if we've had huge debates in the hiding so far. There's been one mail from Felix reaching out to OpenWrt, one counter question asking for clarification, one question about why someone wasn't CC'd, one further question a day later asking whether there is any interest and two one-line replies expressing interest. An agenda pad has been set up, containing essentially just the generic question on how to continue and the line "https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules (draft status?) vs. https://www.lede-project.org/rules.html"; That is basically all - so the core problem here is that there just isn't anything to report. > anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... As I tried to explain further up and as Daniel already wrote; getting used to open communication is hard, this means writing less terse replies, CC'ing appropriate lists etc. I am looking forward to valuable input and I am more than willing to adjust our mode of communication, but bear in mind that this is a rather long learning process. ~ Jo ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: >> > the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my > impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable. > it's up to the reader to check my "creds" if they don't take my word. > this didn't imply anything in particular about how these communities are > run, or that lede should copy their modus opandi. The problem is that you were using "big openly governed communities" to suggest that you had experience in how successful openly governed projects work. If that's not actually the case, then there is no point to saying what you said, other than to try and *sound* like you know something you don't. It doesn't matter what code you contributed, what matters, to the discussion at hand (the transparency or lack thereof of LEDE) is whether you have relevant experience in transparent projects. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:26:42AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > On 16-05-20 03:13 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > >>> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > >>> experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... > >> > >> Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right, > >> perhaps you'd like to share the *names* of these examples so that LEDE > >> can look at what they're doing as a reference. > >> > > you realize that the implication of what i said is that you can google > > my name with some pretty impressive results, right? you'll probably need > > to do that anyway once you know the names. anyway, the communities in > > question are kde and qt. > > I wasn't looking for your contribution in particular, I was looking for > non-guessing-game examples to look at the web sites and logs of to see > whether communities work the way you make it sound like they do (as > fully transparent and openly governed communities). I am not at all > familiar with what the kde and qt communities are actually like and have > to actually look at how they work, to make my own determination of the > facts. > the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable. it's up to the reader to check my "creds" if they don't take my word. this didn't imply anything in particular about how these communities are run, or that lede should copy their modus opandi. ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 03:13 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: >>> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of >>> experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... >> >> Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right, >> perhaps you'd like to share the *names* of these examples so that LEDE >> can look at what they're doing as a reference. >> > you realize that the implication of what i said is that you can google > my name with some pretty impressive results, right? you'll probably need > to do that anyway once you know the names. anyway, the communities in > question are kde and qt. One important difference I already see is an emphasis on the code of conduct, including amongs core members (i.e. no one is above the law). Without that openness can be hostile disaster like Debian. Regards, Danie ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 03:13 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: >>> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of >>> experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... >> >> Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right, >> perhaps you'd like to share the *names* of these examples so that LEDE >> can look at what they're doing as a reference. >> > you realize that the implication of what i said is that you can google > my name with some pretty impressive results, right? you'll probably need > to do that anyway once you know the names. anyway, the communities in > question are kde and qt. I wasn't looking for your contribution in particular, I was looking for non-guessing-game examples to look at the web sites and logs of to see whether communities work the way you make it sound like they do (as fully transparent and openly governed communities). I am not at all familiar with what the kde and qt communities are actually like and have to actually look at how they work, to make my own determination of the facts. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-20 01:01 AM, David Lang wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2016, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > >> Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others, >> impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email >> that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing is contrary to >> the stated goal of transparency, if if the only reason is they think >> it's just trivial or trying to hash things out? Then yes, I think there >> is *too much* back channel mail, and that if they're *serious* about >> transparency they will fix that, even if it's hard to adopt that working >> style. >> >> You know I personally am not afraid to go on the record with my thoughts >> and opinions, and I think that kind of approach is what it takes to do >> transparency right, if it can be uncomfortable and keeps a history of >> thing one might wish were not on the record. >> >>> >>> regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind >>> of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. >>> - as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the >>> whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about >>> non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it. >>> - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs >>> to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem. >>> probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place. >> >> Exactly. It seems like there is still a lot of back channel talk that >> is not public. > > Guys, give them a little time to transition here. > > Not all conversations should be public. > > does the concept of "don't play with matches in a powder magazine" make > sense? > > negotiations and discussions of blame/hurt feelings don't work well if > there is a large crowd of hecklers around. They (both LEDE and OpenWRT > folks) need to be able to meet and discuss history and the effects that > it will have going forward without people second guessing every move and > parsing every word for hidden meanings. > > The LEDE folks flubbed the announcemnt, but that was only a couple weeks > ago. These are people working on this part-time, they have families and > jobs to deal with. It is going to take them time to figure out what and > how to change and communicate the details between them. > > Would you really like it if they started announcing changes, only to > have other LEDE folks contradict them? > > Focus on Code and Tools, you know, technical stuff. Let them have a > little breathing room to figure out the governence stuff. > > Watch what's changing, make suggestions, sure. But tone down the demands > and criticism until they actually show that they aren't willing to > change. So far they've seemed very willing to tweak things in response > to suggestions. > I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was), just as an area for improvement. Certainly I agree there *are* things that shouldn't be on public channels, because it does more harm than good, I'm just saying that it looks like there is still a lot of stuff going in 'in the background' that *isnt' transparent* AND transparency is *stated goal*. Does that mean I think it's deliberate hiding - hell no, I just don't think they've fully got the hang of transparency yet. Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > > anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... > > Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right, > perhaps you'd like to share the *names* of these examples so that LEDE > can look at what they're doing as a reference. > you realize that the implication of what i said is that you can google my name with some pretty impressive results, right? you'll probably need to do that anyway once you know the names. anyway, the communities in question are kde and qt. ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Thu, 19 May 2016, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others, impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing is contrary to the stated goal of transparency, if if the only reason is they think it's just trivial or trying to hash things out? Then yes, I think there is *too much* back channel mail, and that if they're *serious* about transparency they will fix that, even if it's hard to adopt that working style. You know I personally am not afraid to go on the record with my thoughts and opinions, and I think that kind of approach is what it takes to do transparency right, if it can be uncomfortable and keeps a history of thing one might wish were not on the record. regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. - as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it. - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem. probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place. Exactly. It seems like there is still a lot of back channel talk that is not public. Guys, give them a little time to transition here. Not all conversations should be public. does the concept of "don't play with matches in a powder magazine" make sense? negotiations and discussions of blame/hurt feelings don't work well if there is a large crowd of hecklers around. They (both LEDE and OpenWRT folks) need to be able to meet and discuss history and the effects that it will have going forward without people second guessing every move and parsing every word for hidden meanings. The LEDE folks flubbed the announcemnt, but that was only a couple weeks ago. These are people working on this part-time, they have families and jobs to deal with. It is going to take them time to figure out what and how to change and communicate the details between them. Would you really like it if they started announcing changes, only to have other LEDE folks contradict them? Focus on Code and Tools, you know, technical stuff. Let them have a little breathing room to figure out the governence stuff. Watch what's changing, make suggestions, sure. But tone down the demands and criticism until they actually show that they aren't willing to change. So far they've seemed very willing to tweak things in response to suggestions. David Lang ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right, perhaps you'd like to share the *names* of these examples so that LEDE can look at what they're doing as a reference. Assuming of course this isn't just implying more than is actually the case... Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-19 09:31 PM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote: > > Does that mean I think LEDE is perferct? Definitely not, but I've > already seen huge improvements compared to what was happening in > openwrt, and a great deal more openness than was the case in openwrt. > > Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others, > impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email > that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing is contrary to > the stated goal of transparency, if if the only reason is they think > it's just trivial or trying to hash things out? Then yes, I think there > is *too much* back channel mail, and that if they're *serious* about > transparency they will fix that, even if it's hard to adopt that working > style. > > You know I personally am not afraid to go on the record with my thoughts > and opinions, and I think that kind of approach is what it takes to do > transparency right, if it can be uncomfortable and keeps a history of > thing one might wish were not on the record. > If the concert is with spamming the list perhaps something like lede-dev-talk for stuff that's for things like hashing things out and 'trivial' stuff, so that it's still on the public record (since the stated goal is transparency). Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 16-05-19 06:09 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: >> Bjørn wrote: >>> Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some >>> developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are >>> not enough. It's the result that matters. >> >> I certainly agree but we should avoid applying double standards here, >> > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the lede > infrastructure and participation was technically open from the start, > but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it makes the > whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke. Given what happened with emails and the fact that they have published the emails leading up to the announcements (the mailbox is posted in a message to lede-adm), I don't blame them for keeping it secret until it was 'fait accompli'. Certainly I think I think there would have been repercussions that resulted in being shut out of accomplishing anything if they had been public before they could be stopped. > > the one thing that will make a big difference is plainly and openly > admitting the screwup ... and rebooting your "reboot". > that doesn't mean starting from scratch, but instead openly and forcibly > pushing your alternatives within openwrt - as imre pointed out, you have > quite some real power. however controversial such an approach might be, > it cannot possibly do more damage to the community than this hostile > fork does. The problem here is that the LEDE team clearly doesn't *believe* that will actuall work. If they believed and open and transparent process could be brought to openwrt they wouldn't have split. Certainly for all Imre's 'it could have been done in openwrt', I don't see him as being a particularly willing participant in such an internal reboot. Imre's and Luka' protestetations to me seem to be more about keeping control, rather than about fixing what's broken with openwrt. Does that mean I think LEDE is perferct? Definitely not, but I've already seen huge improvements compared to what was happening in openwrt, and a great deal more openness than was the case in openwrt. Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others, impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing is contrary to the stated goal of transparency, if if the only reason is they think it's just trivial or trying to hash things out? Then yes, I think there is *too much* back channel mail, and that if they're *serious* about transparency they will fix that, even if it's hard to adopt that working style. You know I personally am not afraid to go on the record with my thoughts and opinions, and I think that kind of approach is what it takes to do transparency right, if it can be uncomfortable and keeps a history of thing one might wish were not on the record. > > regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind > of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. > - as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the > whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about > non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it. > - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs > to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem. > probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place. Exactly. It seems like there is still a lot of back channel talk that is not public. > > anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... > Open goverance is *hard* and uncomfortable, and involves being public even when would rather not be, wouldn't you say? Regards, Daniel ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
Den 2016-05-20 kl. 00:09, skrev Oswald Buddenhagen: > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: >> Bjørn wrote: >>> Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some >>> developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are >>> not enough. It's the result that matters. >> I certainly agree but we should avoid applying double standards here, >> > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the lede > infrastructure and participation was technically open from the start, > but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it makes the > whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke. > > the one thing that will make a big difference is plainly and openly > admitting the screwup ... and rebooting your "reboot". > > that doesn't mean starting from scratch, but instead openly and forcibly > pushing your alternatives within openwrt - as imre pointed out, you have > quite some real power. however controversial such an approach might be, > it cannot possibly do more damage to the community than this hostile > fork does. > > regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind > of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. > - as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the > whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about > non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it. > - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs > to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem. > probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place. > > anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... Isn't the LEDE-adm list used for that? Just a guess, I'm not on that list... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > Bjørn wrote: > > Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some > > developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are > > not enough. It's the result that matters. > > I certainly agree but we should avoid applying double standards here, > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the lede infrastructure and participation was technically open from the start, but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it makes the whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke. the one thing that will make a big difference is plainly and openly admitting the screwup ... and rebooting your "reboot". that doesn't mean starting from scratch, but instead openly and forcibly pushing your alternatives within openwrt - as imre pointed out, you have quite some real power. however controversial such an approach might be, it cannot possibly do more damage to the community than this hostile fork does. regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. - as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it. - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem. probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place. anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Thu, 19 May 2016, John Crispin wrote: On 19/05/2016 15:34, Bjørn Mork wrote: John Crispin writes: On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote: John Crispin writes: On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote: I don't think that will be possible because it's different people working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't know for sure. we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days. Any status update from the cabal? Maybe it's time to remove the "Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community participation and public meetings. " goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a priority. Bjørn we had various meetings all were public, people have been more active than before and all decision made so far have been active. was this just a drive by shooting or were you planning to achieve anything useful by this mail ? Maybe just drive-by.. But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who "we" are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is we means "the community" it is up to you to decide if you feel like part of the community or not. you are most certainly invited to be part just liek anyone doing constructive work. * we agreed publicly via transparent voting in the last meeting that we will invite active package maintainers to participate in meetings and voting Ok, it's not clear to me watching when 'we' would be the community of anyone commenting on this list vs the smaller 'we' that are the people invited to the meetings. There are legitimate times for each definition, I'm not saying that all meetings should be open to the world. But in any case, could the inner/maintainer team send a quick blurb to the list when a meeting has happened with some info on it? At least for meetings where policy decisions are made. I can see good reasons not to publish too much detail about meetings between the two projects (if there are disagreements, it's too easy for the writeup to cause more grief for example) David Lang___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
Dear Bjørn, > But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are > working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who > "we" are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is > defintitely not an invitation to participate. And the completely > contentless "a solution" just emphasize that. Not exactly opening up > for public discussion. Felix reached out to the OpenWrt on 15th and asked whether there's any interest in having a constructive IRC debate to discuss the future of both projects and Hauke subsequently did set up a vote in order to find a suitable time frame. The vote is ongoing but atm it looks like it will become Wednesday, May 25th at 18:00 GMT. > And it has been more than a few days now... Or maybe I'm not patient > enough. Maybe, maybe not. Personally I expect the discussion process to last for a few weeks to come. > Yes, I understand perfectly well that resources are scarce, and that > I have no right to point to these issues while not actually > contributing myself. You have every right to point out issues and personally I am grateful for constructive input, just try to be clear and explicit when raising concerns. > But all the problems you listed with the OpenWrt project were similar > - lack of resources. Forking to solve that problem will not help. It already helped to achieve a few things envisioned, some of them would have been possible within OpenWrt, some not. - Decisions and meetings made wrt. the project got recorded and published - Build servers got sponsored and integrated into Builbot - Download server mirrors got sponsored and are automatically synced now - We managed to figure out a working mode where people can easily contribute via both Github and mailing list patches while we can still keep a somewhat linear repository history - Web site resources are put into Git so people can contribute to them - Multiple active persons being able to deal with server matters - Some work has been started to produce and improve documentation - Felix and John started tackling image build problems complicating releases in the past - I published our buildbot setup so people can reproduce the things being done to create binaries - I decoupled feeds from target builds in order to enable us doing binary package updates in the future (think security issues) > Which is why I try to give you a hard time now. Don't know if I have > enough "oomph" to actually do that. If you don't see that LEDE is > OpenWrt with less developers, then someone must point that out to > you. As you pointed out yourself, it is the result that matters and so far fewer developers produced more changes in less time compared to OpenWrt. > Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some > developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are > not enough. It's the result that matters. I certainly agree but we should avoid applying double standards here, I doubt that people expected any "results that matter" within a time frame of only two weeks from OpenWrt. That being said I welcome your effort in scrutinizing the project, this will certainly help us not loosing focus in the future. ~ Jo ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 19/05/2016 15:34, Bjørn Mork wrote: > John Crispin writes: >> On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote: >>> John Crispin writes: On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote: > I don't think that will be possible because it's different people > working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt > e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that > they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't > know for sure. we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days. >>> >>> Any status update from the cabal? Maybe it's time to remove the >>> >>> "Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community >>>participation and public meetings. " >>> >>> goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a >>> priority. >>> >>> >>> Bjørn >>> >> >> we had various meetings all were public, people have been more active >> than before and all decision made so far have been active. >> >> was this just a drive by shooting or were you planning to achieve >> anything useful by this mail ? > > Maybe just drive-by.. > > But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are > working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who "we" > are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is we means "the community" it is up to you to decide if you feel like part of the community or not. you are most certainly invited to be part just liek anyone doing constructive work. > defintitely not an invitation to participate. And the completely > contentless "a solution" just emphasize that. Not exactly opening up for > public discussion. that is your interpretation and the result of that was that instead of starting a discussion you demand results and concluded that as we do not actively make you participate we must be wrong and proposed us to step back from our goals which more than likely will not happen. > And it has been more than a few days now... Or maybe I'm not patient > enough. > in those days many things happened, the highlights related to your mail are * we agreed publicly via transparent voting in the last meeting that we will invite active package maintainers to participate in meetings and voting * we have done a lot of research into technical means to handle this, e.g using liquid feedback for example * we started to organize a meeting between the 2 projects to try and resolve open issues and see how to best move along ... > Yes, I understand perfectly well that resources are scarce, and that I > have no right to point to these issues while not actually contributing > myself. But all the problems you listed with the OpenWrt project were > similar - lack of resources. Forking to solve that problem will not > help. Which is why I try to give you a hard time now. Don't know if I > have enough "oomph" to actually do that. If you don't see that LEDE is > OpenWrt with less developers, then someone must point that out to you. > personally i would disagree with you. i see it as a very different setup with a lot of the bloat removed and far simpler structures. personally i would say we have made great progress already. but that is up to the individual to decide. we actually have more people actively working on the tree today than we had 3 months ago. my workload has certainly dropped to half on the merging and reviewing part. you have all the right to start a discussion that is what is called "active participation of the community". your mail however, in terms of communication theory, can be consider as the "killer phrase" making it very hard to use it as the basis for any constructive discussion. to be honest i dont see your mail as giving us a hard time, i see it as a rant which is based on an ill informed perception of what is going on. (no bad feeling attached of course) > Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some developers > saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are not enough. > It's the result that matters. > i dont see it as unfair, i just wondered about the style. a simple "could you elaborate what has happened so far" would have just been more constructive and opened up the possibity to discuss what has been done right so far and what can still be improved. obviously there is much space for improvement the errors and bad the decisions made by me and other over the course of almost a decade cannot all be resolved in a couple of weeks. we are however working on resolving issues. sorry that this is not as apparent to you as we would like it to be. you are more than welcome to take an active part in shaping the future, as long as the style is a little more constructive than your mail from earlier. John ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://l
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
John Crispin writes: > On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote: >> John Crispin writes: >>> On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote: >>> I don't think that will be possible because it's different people working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't know for sure. >>> >>> we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner >>> for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days. >> >> Any status update from the cabal? Maybe it's time to remove the >> >> "Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community >>participation and public meetings. " >> >> goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a >> priority. >> >> >> Bjørn >> > > we had various meetings all were public, people have been more active > than before and all decision made so far have been active. > > was this just a drive by shooting or were you planning to achieve > anything useful by this mail ? Maybe just drive-by.. But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who "we" are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is defintitely not an invitation to participate. And the completely contentless "a solution" just emphasize that. Not exactly opening up for public discussion. And it has been more than a few days now... Or maybe I'm not patient enough. Yes, I understand perfectly well that resources are scarce, and that I have no right to point to these issues while not actually contributing myself. But all the problems you listed with the OpenWrt project were similar - lack of resources. Forking to solve that problem will not help. Which is why I try to give you a hard time now. Don't know if I have enough "oomph" to actually do that. If you don't see that LEDE is OpenWrt with less developers, then someone must point that out to you. Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are not enough. It's the result that matters. Bjørn ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote: > John Crispin writes: >> On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote: >> >>> I don't think that will be possible because it's different people >>> working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt >>> e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that >>> they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't >>> know for sure. >> >> we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner >> for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days. > > Any status update from the cabal? Maybe it's time to remove the > > "Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community >participation and public meetings. " > > goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a > priority. > > > Bjørn > we had various meetings all were public, people have been more active than before and all decision made so far have been active. was this just a drive by shooting or were you planning to achieve anything useful by this mail ? John ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
John Crispin writes: > On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote: > >> I don't think that will be possible because it's different people >> working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt >> e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that >> they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't >> know for sure. > > we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner > for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days. Any status update from the cabal? Maybe it's time to remove the "Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community participation and public meetings. " goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a priority. Bjørn ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote: > On Mon, 9 May 2016, Hans Dedecker wrote: > >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> several people expressed the intention to continue pushing patches to >>> both trees. In any case we'll keep picking stuff from both lists for >>> LEDE for some time to come. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jo-Philipp >>> >>> ___ >>> Lede-dev mailing list >>> Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev >> >> Hi Jo-Philipp, >> >> Can the patches applied by the LEDE developers both on the LEDE and >> OpenWRT trees be kept in sync during a transition period on both trees >> ? I delivered a number of patches 10 days ago; I notice some of them >> are only applied on the LEDE tree and vice versa (others still >> untouched in patchwork). Keeping patches in sync will make the >> transition period more smoothly and reduce the overhead for people >> like me and others to figure out what patch is present on which tree. > > I don't think that will be possible because it's different people > working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt > e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that > they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't > know for sure. > > David Lang > we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days. John ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Mon, 9 May 2016, Hans Dedecker wrote: On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: Hi Michael, several people expressed the intention to continue pushing patches to both trees. In any case we'll keep picking stuff from both lists for LEDE for some time to come. Regards, Jo-Philipp ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev Hi Jo-Philipp, Can the patches applied by the LEDE developers both on the LEDE and OpenWRT trees be kept in sync during a transition period on both trees ? I delivered a number of patches 10 days ago; I notice some of them are only applied on the LEDE tree and vice versa (others still untouched in patchwork). Keeping patches in sync will make the transition period more smoothly and reduce the overhead for people like me and others to figure out what patch is present on which tree. I don't think that will be possible because it's different people working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't know for sure. David Lang ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
Re: [LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > several people expressed the intention to continue pushing patches to > both trees. In any case we'll keep picking stuff from both lists for > LEDE for some time to come. > > Regards, > Jo-Philipp > > ___ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev Hi Jo-Philipp, Can the patches applied by the LEDE developers both on the LEDE and OpenWRT trees be kept in sync during a transition period on both trees ? I delivered a number of patches 10 days ago; I notice some of them are only applied on the LEDE tree and vice versa (others still untouched in patchwork). Keeping patches in sync will make the transition period more smoothly and reduce the overhead for people like me and others to figure out what patch is present on which tree. Br, Hans ___ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
