Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Val Kulkov]

OpenWRT and LEDE/[OpenWRT] folks: I do not have any interest of my own in
seeing particular individuals take upon certain roles or getting
privileges. I am not friends with anyone here. In fact, this is my first
submission to this forum. With respect to individuals and their roles, I am
a disinterested person. However, I am very interested in seeing this
project succeed.

OpenWRT folks: whatever your response is, please do explain your reasons
when you respond. Silence is not your friend. When my kid avoids talking
about something or explaining something, I know that something is wrong. It
is in the human nature to look for bad things in silence or evasive
answers. Your honest, sincere and complete answers to the points raised in
this thread will go long way toward mending relationships and building an
effective team that spends more time on the development and less time
guessing who said what and who did what, or worse, politicking.

Silence or incomplete answers will probably be viewed by many people here
as signs that you may have some ulterior motives, other than the desire for
the project to succeed. Please do not allow us to think that you have some
agenda other than the desire for the project to succeed.

LEDE folks: so far you have done a better job explaining your reasons, but
what I said above applies to you 100% as well in all your future
undertakings. Please do care to explain your reasons, and please be
reasonable in your expectations. I understand that you’ve had enough of
grief and frustration and that was very likely the reason why you had
decided to create a fork. Please try to clear your mind of grief and
frustration now and please make an honest attempt to cooperate for the sake
of the OpenWRT/LEDE community at large.

None of us want to see OpenWRT/LEDE become another OpenOffice/LibreOffice
or Wayland/Mir story. These splits create huge amounts of waste and dilute
valuable resources.

On a personal note, I hope that the re-joined project continues as OpenWRT,
a name that is already well-recognized by many. I also hope that the
antiquated email patch submission mechanism finally gets retired. Github PR
mechanism is vastly superior.

Sincerely,
Val

On 27 June 2016 at 05:39, Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:

> Hi Zoltan,
>
> we started a discussion on OpenWrt re-merge conditions over at lede-dev
> and waited for a while to solicit more feedback.
>
> Since no other people expressed further wishes and since you repeatedly
> asked for a list of things the LEDE folks would like to see in OpenWrt
> I'm going to summarize the list the items we've assembled in
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-adm/2016-June/000144.html
>
> In short our points are (in no particular order):
>
>  - Use the LEDE code base
>  - Adopt the LEDE governance rules
>  - Rework admin access policies
>  - Transfer the OpenWrt project domain to SPI
>  - Stop providing project email addresses
>  - Move mailing lists to an external, neutral provider
>  - Merge LEDE and OpenWrt infrastructure (wiki, forum, ...)
>  - Start a process for granting push access to package feed maintainers
>
> Plus a few other items which got mentioned or agreed upon during various
> discussions:
>
>  - Dissolve private channels
>  - Discuss project matters on public mailing lists
>
>
> Note that the points above reflect mostly the opinions of Felix, John
> and me. Other LEDE members might or might not endorse them, but at least
> did not reject those demands.
>
> Let me know if some of the things above are unclear to you.
>
> Regards,
> Jo
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Hauke Mehrtens]

On 06/27/2016 11:39 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Hi Zoltan,
> 
> we started a discussion on OpenWrt re-merge conditions over at lede-dev
> and waited for a while to solicit more feedback.
> 
> Since no other people expressed further wishes and since you repeatedly
> asked for a list of things the LEDE folks would like to see in OpenWrt
> I'm going to summarize the list the items we've assembled in
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-adm/2016-June/000144.html
> 
> In short our points are (in no particular order):
> 
>  - Use the LEDE code base
>  - Adopt the LEDE governance rules
>  - Rework admin access policies
>  - Transfer the OpenWrt project domain to SPI
>  - Stop providing project email addresses
>  - Move mailing lists to an external, neutral provider
>  - Merge LEDE and OpenWrt infrastructure (wiki, forum, ...)
>  - Start a process for granting push access to package feed maintainers
> 
> Plus a few other items which got mentioned or agreed upon during various
> discussions:
> 
>  - Dissolve private channels
>  - Discuss project matters on public mailing lists
> 
> 
> Note that the points above reflect mostly the opinions of Felix, John
> and me. Other LEDE members might or might not endorse them, but at least
> did not reject those demands.

I endorse this list.

In addition I would add:
 - Inform the project when talking in behave of the project with industry.

Hauke
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2016-06-27 11:56, mbm wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that this is also a statement that the LEDE 
> members will assist in accomplishing the tasks mentioned?
From my side, yes - as long as we agree about the tasks in question.

- Felix
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Jo-Philipp Wich]

Hi Mike,

given sufficient and reasonable agreements I am certainly willing to
help implementing our desired changes.

Regards,
Jo
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[mbm]

Am I correct in assuming that this is also a statement that the LEDE 
members will assist in accomplishing the tasks mentioned?



On 6/27/2016 2:39 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:

Hi Zoltan,

we started a discussion on OpenWrt re-merge conditions over at lede-dev
and waited for a while to solicit more feedback.

Since no other people expressed further wishes and since you repeatedly
asked for a list of things the LEDE folks would like to see in OpenWrt
I'm going to summarize the list the items we've assembled in
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-adm/2016-June/000144.html

In short our points are (in no particular order):

  - Use the LEDE code base
  - Adopt the LEDE governance rules
  - Rework admin access policies
  - Transfer the OpenWrt project domain to SPI
  - Stop providing project email addresses
  - Move mailing lists to an external, neutral provider
  - Merge LEDE and OpenWrt infrastructure (wiki, forum, ...)
  - Start a process for granting push access to package feed maintainers

Plus a few other items which got mentioned or agreed upon during various
discussions:

  - Dissolve private channels
  - Discuss project matters on public mailing lists


Note that the points above reflect mostly the opinions of Felix, John
and me. Other LEDE members might or might not endorse them, but at least
did not reject those demands.

Let me know if some of the things above are unclear to you.

Regards,
Jo
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Jo-Philipp Wich]

Hi Zoltan,

we started a discussion on OpenWrt re-merge conditions over at lede-dev
and waited for a while to solicit more feedback.

Since no other people expressed further wishes and since you repeatedly
asked for a list of things the LEDE folks would like to see in OpenWrt
I'm going to summarize the list the items we've assembled in
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-adm/2016-June/000144.html

In short our points are (in no particular order):

 - Use the LEDE code base
 - Adopt the LEDE governance rules
 - Rework admin access policies
 - Transfer the OpenWrt project domain to SPI
 - Stop providing project email addresses
 - Move mailing lists to an external, neutral provider
 - Merge LEDE and OpenWrt infrastructure (wiki, forum, ...)
 - Start a process for granting push access to package feed maintainers

Plus a few other items which got mentioned or agreed upon during various
discussions:

 - Dissolve private channels
 - Discuss project matters on public mailing lists


Note that the points above reflect mostly the opinions of Felix, John
and me. Other LEDE members might or might not endorse them, but at least
did not reject those demands.

Let me know if some of the things above are unclear to you.

Regards,
Jo
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Daniel Dickinson]

,  lede-adm 
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:22:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: <5756c13c.6040...@uid0.hu>
References: <1465294394.3094.78.camel@homehost> <5756c13c.6040...@uid0.hu>
Face:
iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgAAADAwAQMAAABtzGvEBlBMVEX///8AAABVwtN+eklEQVQY04XQzQ2EIBAF4IdMDIc5UAIlUIKlWMr0ZiMm28jOj+6iMXEOfBBmXgJAVLGlBkU3wcZ9I3Q7EdrAveowx6hZ0q6QJDsRnHlJwr+W4CHF7vLqTEenXABeUnSssbP8SdwdjTHEwcFDtQGKFuWjH8Lna8vAmfEF3NMPdAOsBscASUVORK5CYII=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Tue, 2016-06-07 at 14:42 +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote: 
> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
> > sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
> > not responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
> > lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
> > reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
> > the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
> > in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
> > remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
> > mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
> > to the less than generous suspicions, now).
> >   
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet 
> to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in 
> OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the 
This looks like a 'something else' = miscommunication.  I was actually
referring to Jo's never publicly answered email in which he proposed
having a discussion on the public mailing list.  I believe the reason
the LEDE team hadn't stated what they would like to see is that they
were waiting for acknowledgement of the proposal to discuss the matter
on list before initiating such a discussion.
They can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
> list). The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out 
> the timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not 
> move forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.
> 
> The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from 
> the OpenWrt team is:
> 
> 
> Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" 
> for new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have 
Er, I don't recall seeing that comment - was that a private discussion
somewhere, or did I just miss a public email?  I'm perturbed that I have
no recollection of this suggestion from a public list, particularly in
light of the fact that calls are for transparency and public discussion.
Perhaps in future, this type of thing should be CC'd to a public list,
since it likely was sent to -hackers which is not public (or better,
going forward make -hackers public).
> stayed away from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet 
> according to this, to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their 
> changes. (Apologies to all contributors for not pushing their patches so 
> far). Luka - as no objections but only praises were received - plans to 
> do the proposed github move later this week, which will help with the 
> workflow for contributors.
> 
> What we would like is to:
> - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their 
> targets,
> - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. 
> Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite 
> confusing.
> 
> We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get 
> trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE 
> patches will also be brought in where appropriate.
Regards,
Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2016-06-08 11:12, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
>> Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened,
>> everybody kept contributing to both projects. 
> Let me argue with that:
> 
> 2016-06-07: 08:59 Changeset [49379] by nbd
> treewide: fix replace nbd@… with nbd@… Signed-off-by: …
> 2016-05-30: 08:29 Changeset [49378] by rmilecki
> mac80211: brcmfmac: return -ENFILE if interface exists This makes …
> 2016-05-12: 07:32 Changeset [49377] by rmilecki
> bcm53xx: drop Copyright header from two of my bash scripts Both scripts …
> 
> LEDE members should be more clear about their future plans with OpenWrt 
> in light of this. As far as I'm aware (and that has been also told on 
> here), no commit access was revoked.
Not speaking for any of the other LEDE members, I personally have been
reluctant to contribute to the OpenWrt any longer for multiple reasons:

* After the LEDE announcement, my email address was quickly disabled, my
OpenWrt developer IRC cloak was removed, and I was removed from the
non-open communication channels.
That made it abundantly clear to me that I was no longer being
considered an OpenWrt developer.

* Maintaining and testing both trees is a lot of extra redundant work,
and as not all LEDE project members have OpenWrt commit access the trees
were already drifting apart.

* I wanted to get stuff done quickly enough to see if our approach to
rebooting the community was working.

As for future plans: my own plan is to continue improving LEDE, bringing
in new members and growing the community until we've reached some form
of consensus of how to get the projects merged again.

The way I see it, what we've set out to accomplish with LEDE is working:
We managed to create an open and welcoming community, brought in new
people, fixed a lot of infrastructure issues and managed to improve the
code base significantly.

What are the changes that we've made that you would not consider
appropriate?

- Felix
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Rafał Miłecki]

On 8 June 2016 at 11:12, Zoltan HERPAI  wrote:
> Daniel Golle wrote:
>> Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened,
>> everybody kept contributing to both projects.
>
> Let me argue with that:
>
> 2016-06-07: 08:59 Changeset [49379] by nbd
> treewide: fix replace nbd@… with nbd@… Signed-off-by: …
> 2016-05-30: 08:29 Changeset [49378] by rmilecki
> mac80211: brcmfmac: return -ENFILE if interface exists This makes …
> 2016-05-12: 07:32 Changeset [49377] by rmilecki
> bcm53xx: drop Copyright header from two of my bash scripts Both scripts …
>
> LEDE members should be more clear about their future plans with OpenWrt in
> light of this. As far as I'm aware (and that has been also told on here), no
> commit access was revoked.

There you go:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.embedded.openwrt.devel/40651
https://www.mail-archive.com/lede-dev@lists.infradead.org/msg00776.html
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hey Daniel,

Daniel Golle wrote:

Hi!

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
  

...
The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
OpenWrt team is:


Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to
let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all



Interesting, has anyone asked you to do this? LEDE keeps merging things
from OpenWrt's tree without any difficulties caused so far. There is
even a formal scheme on how to label commits imported from OpenWrt.

  
This was self-imposed until things are worked out, but cannot be kept 
any further - trunk has got a fair amount of dust in the last few weeks.



contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections
but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later
this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.

What we would like is to:
- Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
targets,



By posting patches e.g. for the oxnas target which I maintain to the
mailing list and bother John to merge them?
  
Nobody from the current OpenWrt team blocked that you receive full 
access to the tree, and since John has been reviewing most of your work 
could have easily proposed that you get access to the tree.



How do you imagine this could work without a transparent procedure on
how people could gain or (be forced to) drop commit access?
  
Nothing about that is mentioned on

https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules
(and that's apparently still a draft which hasn't ever been approved
  
One fair point for more transparency. While I have to argue that no one 
within the team pushed to get the draft completed for years, we'll look 
to get some guidance and finish it.
As You might be very well aware, for people to get commit access, an 
internal vote was run, and the majority decision won (usually to allow 
commit access).



by all existing project members, I never ever saw any of that
PGP-signed voting described in there on the mailing list happen in
all the years I'm following it)

  

- Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
confusing.



Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened,
everybody kept contributing to both projects. 

Let me argue with that:

2016-06-07: 08:59 Changeset [49379] by nbd
treewide: fix replace nbd@… with nbd@… Signed-off-by: …
2016-05-30: 08:29 Changeset [49378] by rmilecki
mac80211: brcmfmac: return -ENFILE if interface exists This makes …
2016-05-12: 07:32 Changeset [49377] by rmilecki
bcm53xx: drop Copyright header from two of my bash scripts Both scripts …

LEDE members should be more clear about their future plans with OpenWrt 
in light of this. As far as I'm aware (and that has been also told on 
here), no commit access was revoked.



However, I reckon you
cannot expect people to just get back to work without priorly dealing
with or at least acknowlede the fact that very few people did most of
the work without a clear strategy on how to change that situation.
Moving to github might improve that, but still fails to address the
remaining issues (see http://www.lede-project.org/), such as the
intransparent communication and decission making behind closed doors.
  
Hang on. No one said anywhere things (or a large portion of them) won't 
be fixed or changed. What'll be fixed in the short term is:


- Github move for easier contribution - as discussed. I more than agree 
that patches were handled by a small amount of people compared to who is 
listed on https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/people .
- Release cycle - 6 months, 9 months? This was also discussed in the 
earlier threads that it's needed and will be done
- More open internal discussions and votings. (From my perspective, I do 
believe that a private channel should be kept within the project, but 
that should have low traffic and only the truly internal discussions 
should be held there. Like where to get the beers for the next conference.)


As mentioned earlier, input from LEDE would be much appreciated. While 
the team might not agree with all the changes already done in LEDE, the 
appropriate ones should / will be brought in.



Technically that means openwrt-hack...@lists.openwrt.org should have
a publicly accessible archive (at least from now on), the private IRC
channels should also allow public read access and decissions made
should be backed by those publicly accessible communications.
  
That is something where the rest of the OpenWrt team will need to chime 
in to discuss. I have some doubts about opening up a repository into the 
public that was private for years, but let's discuss that.




We 

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Álvaro Fernández Rojas]

El 7/6/16 a las 14:42, Zoltan HERPAI escribió:
> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
>> sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
>> not responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
>> lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
>> reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
>> the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
>> in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
>> remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
>> mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
>> to the less than generous suspicions, now).
>>   
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to 
> see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in OpenWrt 
> (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list). The IRC 
> discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the timezone 
> differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move forward - this 
> is obviously an issue on our side as well.
> 
> The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the 
> OpenWrt team is:
> 
> 
> Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for 
> new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away 
> from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to 
> let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all 
> contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections 
> but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later 
> this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.
I think you're distorting Felix's words here (Felix correct us if we're 
mistaken), and making up an excuse for the fact that none of you wants to take 
over with the work that the so called former OpenWrt members did.

> 
> What we would like is to:
> - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their targets,
This is a sensitive task, especially for those of us who lack commit access to 
OpenWrt. Moreover I'm not going to ask blogic, jow or anyone else to spend 
their precious time backporting my LEDE contributions to OpenWrt.

> - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. 
> Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite 
> confusing.
Do you really want to reunite? I haven't seen any official word from OpenWrt 
either on this matter... (dead end?)

> 
> We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get trunk 
> back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches will 
> also be brought in where appropriate.
Glad to know this. Who's going to this time consuming work?

> 
> Regards,
> The OpenWrt team
Please specify who the "OpenWrt team" is.
I think it no longer reflects the people stated here: 
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/people

> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are
> yet to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to
> happen in OpenWrt. 
>
i don't think you'll get anything more official than jow's mail from may
26. i'll freely admit that it's somewhat lacking regarding directly
actionable "strategic" items, but you guys gave no (public) indication
that you're even interested in an actual dialog at all. the statements
regarding the canceled email forwards don't exactly help, either
(seriously, who's supposed to buy that?!).

> The OpenWrt team
>
this way to communicate is part of the explicitly stated problems which
lede is trying to address (and failing at inception, but hey, let's get
over this tiny faux pas already ^^).
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[David Lang]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2016, Eric Schultz wrote:


Zoltan,

I'm pleased to hear there's been some movement. Does this mean that OpenWrt
is going to have releases while LEDE will not?


Considering that LEDE folks recently posted a "what's blocking the release" 
message, this would be extremely unlikely.


I am very interested in seeing what OpenWRT is going to be doing next. I hope 
that it's more than just pulling patches from LEDE. That's a perfectly 
legitimate thing to do, but would be rather limiting in what value OpenWRT would 
be providing.


And if it is the viewpoint of OpenWRT that LEDE is an experimental testbed (the 
way that Fedora is seen as a testbed for RHEL), then people should not be told 
to go away if a lede question is posted on the OpenWRT forums (something I've 
seen a few times so far)


David Lang


Eric

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Zoltan HERPAI  wrote:


Daniel Dickinson wrote:


Hi,

I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
not responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
to the less than generous suspicions, now).




Hi Daniel,

May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to
see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in
OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list).
The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the
timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move
forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.

The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
OpenWrt team is:


Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this,
to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to
all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no
objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github
move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.

What we would like is to:
- Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
targets,
- Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
confusing.

We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE
patches will also be brought in where appropriate.

Regards,
The OpenWrt team

___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel





___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Eric Schultz]

Zoltan,

I'm pleased to hear there's been some movement. Does this mean that OpenWrt
is going to have releases while LEDE will not?

Eric

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Zoltan HERPAI  wrote:

> Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
>> sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
>> not responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
>> lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
>> reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
>> the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
>> in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
>> remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
>> mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
>> to the less than generous suspicions, now).
>>
>>
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet to
> see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in
> OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the list).
> The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out the
> timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not move
> forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.
>
> The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
> OpenWrt team is:
> 
>
> Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
> new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
> from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this,
> to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to
> all contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no
> objections but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github
> move later this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.
>
> What we would like is to:
> - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
> targets,
> - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
> Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
> confusing.
>
> We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
> trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE
> patches will also be brought in where appropriate.
>
> Regards,
> The OpenWrt team
>
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>



-- 
Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation
http://www.prplfoundation.org
eschu...@prplfoundation.org
cell: 920-539-0404
skype: ericschultzwi
@EricPrpl
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Daniel Golle]

Hi!

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:42:36PM +0200, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> ...
> The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from the
> OpenWrt team is:
> 
> 
> Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" for
> new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have stayed away
> from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet according to this, to
> let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their changes. (Apologies to all

Interesting, has anyone asked you to do this? LEDE keeps merging things
from OpenWrt's tree without any difficulties caused so far. There is
even a formal scheme on how to label commits imported from OpenWrt.

> contributors for not pushing their patches so far). Luka - as no objections
> but only praises were received - plans to do the proposed github move later
> this week, which will help with the workflow for contributors.
> 
> What we would like is to:
> - Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their
> targets,

By posting patches e.g. for the oxnas target which I maintain to the
mailing list and bother John to merge them?
How do you imagine this could work without a transparent procedure on
how people could gain or (be forced to) drop commit access?
Nothing about that is mentioned on
https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules
(and that's apparently still a draft which hasn't ever been approved
by all existing project members, I never ever saw any of that
PGP-signed voting described in there on the mailing list happen in
all the years I'm following it)

> - Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite.
> Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite
> confusing.

Which exact goal are you referring to? Imho a 'split' never happened,
everybody kept contributing to both projects. However, I reckon you
cannot expect people to just get back to work without priorly dealing
with or at least acknowlede the fact that very few people did most of
the work without a clear strategy on how to change that situation.
Moving to github might improve that, but still fails to address the
remaining issues (see http://www.lede-project.org/), such as the
intransparent communication and decission making behind closed doors.
Technically that means openwrt-hack...@lists.openwrt.org should have
a publicly accessible archive (at least from now on), the private IRC
channels should also allow public read access and decissions made
should be backed by those publicly accessible communications.

> 
> We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get
> trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE patches
> will also be brought in where appropriate.

Great to hear this!


> 
> Regards,
> The OpenWrt team

Just for the record: Who is that exactly?


Cheers


Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Daniel Dickinson wrote:

Hi,

I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
not responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
to the less than generous suspicions, now).
  


Hi Daniel,

May I ask you to point to which e-mail are you referring to? We are yet 
to see an official line from LEDE on what they want to see to happen in 
OpenWrt (setting aside the FUD some LEDE members have shown on the 
list). The IRC discussion did not happen due to being unable to work out 
the timezone differences, the conversation on the mailing list did not 
move forward - this is obviously an issue on our side as well.


The official line - which I should have sent out a few days ago - from 
the OpenWrt team is:



Felix's initial comment was LEDE to become a "development environment" 
for new ideas, and to keep OpenWrt as the standard distro. We have 
stayed away from committing to OpenWrt trunk to keep a clean sheet 
according to this, to let LEDE members cleanly and easily merge their 
changes. (Apologies to all contributors for not pushing their patches so 
far). Luka - as no objections but only praises were received - plans to 
do the proposed github move later this week, which will help with the 
workflow for contributors.


What we would like is to:
- Ask the LEDE members currently maintaining targets to update their 
targets,
- Ask the LEDE members to tell us about terms and wishes for reunite. 
Currently there is no official word from LEDE on this, which is quite 
confusing.


We will start merging the pending patches in patchwork this week to get 
trunk back into a healthy state while discussions are underway. LEDE 
patches will also be brought in where appropriate.


Regards,
The OpenWrt team
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

[OpenWrt-Devel] Response to LEDE proposal/queries/mail?

[Daniel Dickinson]

iVBORw0KGgoNSUhEUgAAADAwAQMAAABtzGvEBlBMVEX///8AAABVwtN+eklEQVQY04XQzQ2EIBAF4IdMDIc5UAIlUIKlWMr0ZiMm28jOj+6iMXEOfBBmXgJAVLGlBkU3wcZ9I3Q7EdrAveowx6hZ0q6QJDsRnHlJwr+W4CHF7vLqTEenXABeUnSssbP8SdwdjTHEwcFDtQGKFuWjH8Lna8vAmfEF3NMPdAOsBscASUVORK5CYII=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I had a few emails on this topic I thought better of sending, but I'm
sure I'm not the only one wondering why the remaining OpenWrt devs have
not responded to the various LEDE overtures on this mailing list.  Is it
lack of time, an unwillingness to attempt to have an honest and
reasonable dialogue in public, or something else?  I admit that for all
the furor over the fork, and complaints about LEDE lack of transparency
in the fork, I'm seeing a lot more communication from LEDE than from the
remaining devs, and am left to guess the reasons why (although with my
mechanism to help me avoid bad emails, I don't give voice to my tendency
to the less than generous suspicions, now).

Regards,

Daniel
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel