Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-06 07:53 AM, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson
>  wrote:
> 
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,
>>> but
>>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very
>>> much not
>>> > welcome.
>>>
>>> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
>>> working well together and that this has been a long time coming;
>>> perhaps
>>> if something like using a mediator had been considered before
>>> things got
>>> to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure
>>> there is a
>>> solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm
>>> really not
>>> sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I
>>> suspect
>>> a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and
>>> don't,
>>> really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
>>> open source project that doesn't fly).
>>>
>>> I don't disagree.  I just see the current state of Openwrt/Lede as a
>>> mess for the community.
>>
>> I agree, I just don't see how the LEDE team could have avoided it
>> without giving up and accepting the broken status quo.
> 
> I hope you realize the LEDE team created most of that status quo.

In part that is why I came to my senses and realized that in my attempts
to understand the situation and make sense if it with insufficient
information that I made guesses and had impressions that may not be
accurate, and that calmer headers needed to prevail.

I am not totally convinced that LEDE is really going to be different,
for this very reason.  As I've said elsewhere, at this point time is
what will show the truth or falsehood of the claims made.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Imre Kaloz]

On Thu, 05 May 2016 17:44:43 +0200, Daniel Petre   
wrote:





On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:

There is plenty of blame to go around, I think.  Seems like the Lede
guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
leadership privately that they were planning this venture.


If i read correctly the feedback from the LEDE guys (and many of the  
people in here) then it seems EVEN THEY did not had any serious real  
feedback since a while ago from the main OpenWrt "headquarters".


So.. what do you do when you ask (probably several times) and do not get  
any answer at all.. ?


They were in charge. When the lead developer and the release manager claim  
they had no power to change the way (yet both procd and netifd got  
introduced without prior discussion or agreement), you know something is  
fishy.



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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Imre Kaloz]

On Thu, 05 May 2016 18:24:09 +0200, Daniel Dickinson  
 wrote:



On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome,  
but
> splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very  
much not

> welcome.

Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
working well together and that this has been a long time coming;  
perhaps
if something like using a mediator had been considered before  
things got

to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure
there is a
solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm really  
not
sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I  
suspect
a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and  
don't,

really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
open source project that doesn't fly).

I don't disagree.  I just see the current state of Openwrt/Lede as a
mess for the community.


I agree, I just don't see how the LEDE team could have avoided it
without giving up and accepting the broken status quo.


I hope you realize the LEDE team created most of that status quo.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Valent Turkovic]

I'm an outsider, have nothing to do with OpenWrt developement but
still work on few projects which depend on OpenWrt as awesome project
that enables us to do our projects (wifi mesh networking) but also do
professional jobs for clients using OpenWrt as embedded os for lots of
different applications.

We have "suffered" both on volunteers side (wifi mesh) and on
professional side by infrastructure failing... mirrors, wiki, forum...
you name it, all of it was down quite a lot in last few years, and on
IRC or mailing list you couldn't get concrete and timely answers. This
is a HUGE red flag for any size project.

Also even if we hd really good developers who know what they were
doing (I'm not that one) we couldn't get patches into trunk without
knowing somebody in the inside circle who has commit access, so
patches would get ignored... and kept in our own git... this is also a
really huge red flag.

I have convinced companies that I work for to donate money towards
OpenWrt so you have some budget for infrastructure, and I'm sure that
there are lots of other people who could also get some funding, but
answers I got on IRC were really dissapointing - that there is now was
to give donations towards better infrastructure or any other kind of
collecting funds...

These are all signs of poorly managed open source project/community
and I welcome any change in any direction that aims to fix any of
these issues... so fork away and make things better. Go LEDE team!
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 6 May 2016 at 03:53, Luka Perkov  wrote:
>>On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
 Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
 squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
 toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
 Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for
 changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project.
>>>
>>> Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply
>>> kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization
>>> in secret; you've created the public perception that we're somehow
>>> against you when really we all want the same things.
>>
>> Years of internal discussion led nowhere. Maybe it helps now that we're
>> making the whole issue public.
>
> For the sake of transparency, we've had public discussions, about a number of
> things, for example switching to Git:
>
> - https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036390.html
> - https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036480.html
> - https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036486.html
> - https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036500.html
>
> And based on these inputs from you the switch was not made even though several
> OpenWrt developers wanted to switch.
>
> Also, server outages can happen to anybody:
> - https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2016-January/038547.html
>
> However, we do not want to point fingers. What we do want is to make a great
> community around OpenWrt and to drive innovation - just like it has been done
> for more then a decade now.
>
> There has been a long history - mostly good, sometimes bad - since the project
> started from a garage project, to now having a project used by an awesome
> amount of users. This can be seen from the constructive discussions in this
> list on a daily basis, and in this very thread. Also, the project is used as
> the main SDK by many silicon vendors internally, and by vast number of
> companies on the embedded market.
>
> We are open for a discussion and would like to keep the OpenWrt's and it's
> community interests in the first place. Splitting the project does not make
> sense. Do you agree?
>
 We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this,
 however the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
 addresses somewhat undermines this. We will not respond in kind and we
 will continue to maintain the critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure
 that we control.
>>>
>>> Let's be clear on this subject; no commit access was revoked, you still
>>> have full read and write access to the entire OpenWrt tree.
>>>
>>> Email forwarding was temporarily disabled following the LEDE announcement
>>> - LEDE's own rules prohibit project based email addresses
>> No, they don't. They state that the LEDE project won't provide project
>> email addresses. Interpreting that as meaning that we shouldn't be able
>> to access our openwrt.org addresses is more than a bit of a stretch.
>
> In any case, due to the events that happened and the fact that the OpenWrt 
> name
> is being used in a manner opposite of the projects best interest, we felt that
> these actions were needed in order to avoid the further damages to the 
> project.
>
>>> - It's unclear if LEDE still represents OpenWrt
>> So? Asking us to not send any further emails about LEDE from our
>> openwrt.org addresses should have been enough.
>
> Actually, this was discussed on #lede-adm.

IRC history is hard to follow, I'd better assume that something not
written here never happened.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[David Lang]

You may be right that OpenWRT is doomed, but we have seen time and time again 
that OpenSource software is not a zero-sum game.


Yes, if OpenWRT does nothing, it will struggle, but that's unlikely to be the 
case.


For that matter, even with no new manpower, OpenWRT could just copy everything 
that LEDE does and still survive for a long time based on brand recognition 
(after all, people are still downloading OpenOffice, and that hasn't even been 
pulling improvements from LibreOffice)


There's no question that there is going to be disruption and a loss of progress 
in the short term, but before you count either side out, let them stabilize, and 
figure out what's really important to them going forward.


Revisit the question in 6-9 months and things will probably be much clearer.

Remember that the remaining OpenWRT folks haven't has weeks or months to plan 
what to do at this point. It will take them time for them to figure out what's 
going to end up happening. In the short term, they have to plug the holes and 
figure out if anything critical needs to be done to keep the lights on. Only 
after they are able to get past this short term crisis will they be able to 
really think about the larger issues and figure out what to do about them.


And the LEDE folks have a lot of infrastructure to setup (and there will be a 
lot of bikeshedding going on while they do this), so they are going to take some 
time to get everything going and get a release out.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca]

I like to take decisions based more on "Realpolitik" than on
ideology/feelings. I have no side and no feelings for any of people
involved. I just want to have a good router distribution.

What is a OSS project? It is the sum of work of people. So, the future of a
project lies on how much people will work on it.

Let's face: if you sum the commits count* of those leaving, you start to
worry about OpenWRT:

Core:
 10815 nbd <<
  4531 juhosg
  3649 blogic <<
  3436 florian
  2654 nico
  2183 jow <<
  1482 kaloz
  1414 hauke <<
   925 wbx
   718 cyrus <<

Packages:
  512 Steven Barth <<
   469 Ted Hess <<
   256 Marcel Denia
   250 Daniel Golle <<
   235 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
   230 sbyx
   214 Hannu Nyman
   202 Alexandru Ardelean
   162 Jo-Philipp Wich <<
   154 Nicolas Thill
(git shortlog -s -n | head -10)

*yes, I know that they are not the author of all commits but they were the
ones that reviewed the patches and committed them.

If you lose most of the committers, the project will REALLY lag behind, to
a point of losing its self sustainability. Those leaving represents more
than 50% of commits of all time and, since 2014, they are the top 6 devs
with more than 80% of commits.
(git shortlog -s -n 3328763a8d0abbcbcf79b5a91e6abbb0b55b3119..HEAD  | head
-10)
They are(were) the ones currently working.

One of the complaints was that there were no process of introducing new
devs. So, when a bunch of them leave, what will happen? Ease the process of
including new devs (which is one of the demanded changes)? Do we really
think that there is a suppressed supply of developers wanting to replace
the leaving devs?

It seems that the decision power in OpenWRT does not match the amount of
work each one is currently dedicating to the project.

What might happen with the fork?

OpenWRT loses 80% of its development power (not counting those that leave
to LEDE after).
LEDE might attract more devs with an open politic (as packages are much
better at github). In the end, if LEDE succeeds on balance more devs,
stability and new resources, everybody will use it and OpenWRT will start
to rot. If it fails, both projects might die and everybody loses.

This was already happened with OpenOffice/LibreOffice (I guess with
ffmpeg/libav less devs left). They created a new project because of
disagreement (with Oracle). Devs flew to the new project. The old one
started to rot and ended dropped to the community. I guess most of the
current downloaders of OpenOffice do not know LibreOffice and they are not
power users. With OpenWRT, most of downloaders are power users.

You can replace infrastructure in a matter of weeks. Replace a brand in
months. However, you need years or decades to form a development team.

What are the options for OpenWRT Decision Team (as the development team
just left)?

1) Do nothing. Let LEDE take its chances. If it succeed, it will take the
place of OpenWRT and OpenWRT will rot. If not, we'll might have a version
of mutual assured destruction.

2) The remaining OpenWRT Core Team accept some (or all) terms of the LEDE
Team. Face it. There were already most of the "OpenWRT Core Team". Now give
them the corresponding decision power.

Even if all the remaining of the OpenWRT Core Team resign now and give all
the control to LEDE, OpenWRT will be less affected than the current
situation.

If I felt that my position would put in danger a project on which I
dedicated and care so much, I would rather simply resign than let my work
be gone. OpenWRT should be more than someone's project. However, there is
no need to anyone to leave but a need of power transferring.

The ones with current decision power at OpenWRT will either give away some
of its power or they will lose it all (in favor of a rebooted OpenWRT
leaded by LEAD or because it simply became irrelevant).

Regards,
-- 

Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Luka Perkov]

>On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
>> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often 
>>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned 
>>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues. 
>>> Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for 
>>> changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project. 
>>
>> Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply
>> kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization
>> in secret; you've created the public perception that we're somehow
>> against you when really we all want the same things.
>
> Years of internal discussion led nowhere. Maybe it helps now that we're
> making the whole issue public.

For the sake of transparency, we've had public discussions, about a number of
things, for example switching to Git:

- https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036390.html
- https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036480.html
- https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036486.html
- https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2015-October/036500.html

And based on these inputs from you the switch was not made even though several
OpenWrt developers wanted to switch.

Also, server outages can happen to anybody:
- https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2016-January/038547.html

However, we do not want to point fingers. What we do want is to make a great
community around OpenWrt and to drive innovation - just like it has been done
for more then a decade now. 

There has been a long history - mostly good, sometimes bad - since the project
started from a garage project, to now having a project used by an awesome
amount of users. This can be seen from the constructive discussions in this
list on a daily basis, and in this very thread. Also, the project is used as
the main SDK by many silicon vendors internally, and by vast number of
companies on the embedded market.

We are open for a discussion and would like to keep the OpenWrt's and it's
community interests in the first place. Splitting the project does not make
sense. Do you agree?

>>> We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this, 
>>> however the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email 
>>> addresses somewhat undermines this. We will not respond in kind and we 
>>> will continue to maintain the critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure 
>>> that we control.
>>
>> Let's be clear on this subject; no commit access was revoked, you still
>> have full read and write access to the entire OpenWrt tree.
>>
>> Email forwarding was temporarily disabled following the LEDE announcement
>> - LEDE's own rules prohibit project based email addresses
> No, they don't. They state that the LEDE project won't provide project
> email addresses. Interpreting that as meaning that we shouldn't be able
> to access our openwrt.org addresses is more than a bit of a stretch.

In any case, due to the events that happened and the fact that the OpenWrt name
is being used in a manner opposite of the projects best interest, we felt that
these actions were needed in order to avoid the further damages to the project.

>> - It's unclear if LEDE still represents OpenWrt
> So? Asking us to not send any further emails about LEDE from our
> openwrt.org addresses should have been enough.

Actually, this was discussed on #lede-adm.

>> My hope is that this whole LEDE vs OpenWrt situation can be resolved.
> I hope so too.

That is good to hear. Bringing the issue to a more public discussion might
speed up resolving them, but it is in everyone's best interest to get them
resolved.

Since so far there has not been a presented reason why the proposals made could
not be incorporated in main OpenWrt as well it still remains unclear what
benefits brings splitting the project. I propose we work together to come up
with a unified solution that all the community will benefit from.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Hartmut Knaack]

mbm schrieb am 05.05.2016 um 21:22:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often 
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned 
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues. 
>> Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for 
>> changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project. 
> 
> Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply 
> kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization 
> in secret; you've created the public perception that we're somehow 
> against you when really we all want the same things.
> 
>> A critical part of many of these debates was the fact that people who 
>> were controlling critical pieces of the infrastructure flat out 
>> refused to allow other people to step up and help, even in the face of 
>> being unable to deal with important issues themselves in a timely 
>> manner. This kind of single-point-of-failure thing has been going on 
>> for years, with no significant progress on resolving it. In the LEDE 
>> project we decided to significantly simplify the infrastructure and 
>> spread out admin access enough to minimize the chance of this 
>> situation ever happening again. 
>> While we have pushed for and actively worked on decentralizing the
>> infrastructure, we were also frequently asked to move back to
>> centralizing things again.
>> The excessive downtime of the main site this year is a good example of
>> why we definitely don't want to go that way.
> 
> I'll let Kaloz address this personally.
> 
>> Do you think we can get the changes outlined by the LEDE project
>> implement in OpenWrt? If so, how?
> 
> We can start by having an actual conversation between the two groups. 
> I'm not against what LEDE was trying to accomplish, but I am against how 
> it was done.
> 
>> We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this, 
>> however the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email 
>> addresses somewhat undermines this. We will not respond in kind and we 
>> will continue to maintain the critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure 
>> that we control.
> 
> Let's be clear on this subject; no commit access was revoked, you still 
> have full read and write access to the entire OpenWrt tree.
> 
> Email forwarding was temporarily disabled following the LEDE announcement
> - LEDE's own rules prohibit project based email addresses
> - It's unclear if LEDE still represents OpenWrt
> 

Disabling someone's email-account without prior notice and a decent time frame
just because you don't agree with that persons behavior is totally immature
and inappropriate. The 'excuse' pointed out here just demonstrates this
ridiculousness.
Just my 2 cents.
Hartmut

> My hope is that this whole LEDE vs OpenWrt situation can be resolved.
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
> 



0xFAC89148.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Felix Fietkau]

On 2016-05-05 20:22, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often 
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned 
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues. 
>> Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for 
>> changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project. 
> 
> Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply 
> kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization 
> in secret; you've created the public perception that we're somehow 
> against you when really we all want the same things.
Years of internal discussion led nowhere. Maybe it helps now that we're
making the whole issue public.

>> We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this, 
>> however the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email 
>> addresses somewhat undermines this. We will not respond in kind and we 
>> will continue to maintain the critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure 
>> that we control.
> 
> Let's be clear on this subject; no commit access was revoked, you still 
> have full read and write access to the entire OpenWrt tree.
> 
> Email forwarding was temporarily disabled following the LEDE announcement
> - LEDE's own rules prohibit project based email addresses
No, they don't. They state that the LEDE project won't provide project
email addresses. Interpreting that as meaning that we shouldn't be able
to access our openwrt.org addresses is more than a bit of a stretch.

> - It's unclear if LEDE still represents OpenWrt
So? Asking us to not send any further emails about LEDE from our
openwrt.org addresses should have been enough.

> My hope is that this whole LEDE vs OpenWrt situation can be resolved.
I hope so too.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 03:22 PM, mbm wrote:
> On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
>> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
>> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
>> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
>> Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for
>> changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project. 
> 
> Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply
> kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization

That depends - is 'people you don't agree with' a majority that is being
sidelined by a new organization or a minority trying dictate to the
majority?

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

Might I submit that my impression is that Kaloz (at least) holds
infrastructure hostage to maintain control, and that the fundamental
problem here is that OpenWrt is *not* democratic and ignores what people
who were ones visibly working on openwrt want and overrides their wishes
because he/they has/have the keys.

That doesn't work.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is certainly my impression.

There isn't management for openwrt except by democratic/meritocratic
principles, and no one should try to force it to be otherwise.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[mbm]

On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote:
Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often 
squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned 
toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues. 
Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for 
changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project. 


Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply 
kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization 
in secret; you've created the public perception that we're somehow 
against you when really we all want the same things.


A critical part of many of these debates was the fact that people who 
were controlling critical pieces of the infrastructure flat out 
refused to allow other people to step up and help, even in the face of 
being unable to deal with important issues themselves in a timely 
manner. This kind of single-point-of-failure thing has been going on 
for years, with no significant progress on resolving it. In the LEDE 
project we decided to significantly simplify the infrastructure and 
spread out admin access enough to minimize the chance of this 
situation ever happening again. 
While we have pushed for and actively worked on decentralizing the

infrastructure, we were also frequently asked to move back to
centralizing things again.
The excessive downtime of the main site this year is a good example of
why we definitely don't want to go that way.


I'll let Kaloz address this personally.


Do you think we can get the changes outlined by the LEDE project
implement in OpenWrt? If so, how?


We can start by having an actual conversation between the two groups. 
I'm not against what LEDE was trying to accomplish, but I am against how 
it was done.


We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this, 
however the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email 
addresses somewhat undermines this. We will not respond in kind and we 
will continue to maintain the critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure 
that we control.


Let's be clear on this subject; no commit access was revoked, you still 
have full read and write access to the entire OpenWrt tree.


Email forwarding was temporarily disabled following the LEDE announcement
- LEDE's own rules prohibit project based email addresses
- It's unclear if LEDE still represents OpenWrt

My hope is that this whole LEDE vs OpenWrt situation can be resolved.
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[David Lang]

On Thu, 5 May 2016, Carlos Ferreira wrote:


I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing.
If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that
seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the
industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fact, I see it as
a good thing because it means that there are developers who care about the
future of such embedded development environment.


The loss of brand recognition is a bad thing (see LibreOffice vs OpenOffice for 
example)


but that said, this doesn't have to be permanent (see egcs vs gcc for example)

David Lang___
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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Golle]

Hi Daniel,

I already merged lynxis series now that I see your comment.
If you feel like it, it'd be nice if you point out the remaining
places where the name needs to be replaced and submit (a) patch(es).

Cheers

Daniel

On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 02:03:43PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> If you're interested, I can send you examples of a full rebrand patchset
> (there are *quite* a few places to change, and this patchset doesn't get
> them all) which I used in a "Don't blame OpenWrt" patchset I created
> when I forked (although never publicly announced as wasn't entirely
> convinced of the worth, and it wasn't ready).
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel
> 
> On 16-05-05 01:33 PM, Alexander Couzens wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Couzens 
> > ---
> >  target/imagebuilder/Config.in   | 2 +-
> >  target/imagebuilder/files/repositories.conf | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/target/imagebuilder/Config.in b/target/imagebuilder/Config.in
> > index 1bc4533..245c715 100644
> > --- a/target/imagebuilder/Config.in
> > +++ b/target/imagebuilder/Config.in
> > @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> >  config IB
> > -   bool "Build the OpenWrt Image Builder"
> > +   bool "Build the LEDE Image Builder"
> > depends on !PROFILE_KCONFIG
> > depends on !EXTERNAL_TOOLCHAIN
> > help
> > diff --git a/target/imagebuilder/files/repositories.conf 
> > b/target/imagebuilder/files/repositories.conf
> > index 8f1f27f..93ed97b 100644
> > --- a/target/imagebuilder/files/repositories.conf
> > +++ b/target/imagebuilder/files/repositories.conf
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> >  ## Place your custom repositories here, they must match the architecture 
> > and version.
> >  # src/gz %n %U
> > -# src custom file:///usr/src/openwrt/bin/%T/packages
> > +# src custom file:///usr/src/lede/bin/%T/packages
> >  
> > 
> 
> ___
> Lede-dev mailing list
> lede-...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 01:49 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson  
>>> wrote:
 On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> [snip]
>> [snip]
 When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
 all that long ago that openwrt was in bad position and that something
 needed to change, and I think that may have been *part* of the reason
 accepting the status quo was no longer an acceptable answer.
>>>
>>> I don't believe that those who are in LEDE now couldn't do anything
>>> (that means is was dying in their hands). Actually I'm still under
>>
>> I guess the real test will be what happens going forward - if LEDE dies
>> for the same reasons OpenWrt was dying then that puts paid to LEDE's
>> story; it it succeeds then it vindicates them.
> 
> I hope the problems will be resolved and we will have one project.

That would be ideal, but I am doubtful, unless part(y|ies) involved have
a major change of heart.

> 
>>> impression that they controlled pretty much everything. And the part
>>> they didn't control (what exactly?) was only important to them.
>>
>> I have no clue about this part, I'm not exactly in the loop.  I think
>> part of the problem has been that there is no means to add new
>> developers, and that suggestions for adding developers have been opposed
>> (that's a guess though).
> 
> I don't think it was opposed. And I don't think it was a major problem.

You sound like you know more than I about this.  It was a guess.  Only
actual information will really answer the question.

>>> But I guess we will never know full story, unless both parties are
>>> willing to disclose all their private conversations related to
>>> project.
>>
>> Yeah, pretty much we're left guessing unless there is more information
>> given.  I'm thinking the LEDE split was not like a conspiratorial split
>> where everything is carefully planned out and orchestrated, but more of
>> a rapid response (given that this isn't part of paid work for the most
>> of them, and even then the LEDE split wouldn't likely be part of the
>> job/contract) to something behind the scenes.  Even if the LEDE team is
>> unable to post to this list, I hope they give more information using the
>> avenues available to them, once they get the chance to do so.
> 
> Look at mailing list, commits and domain.
> It was all started back in March and was not disclosed. That means the
> plans were even earlier.

Based on https://lede-project.org/wp-...@wwsnet.net.mbox it was merely
an idea until early March, and again, to me indicates that things going
on in the OpenWrt project that pushed the LEDE team to the breaking
point, and which, contrary to Mike's email, were not being addressed (as
Felix pointed out in his response, which I'm not sure if was accepted on
this list, although it was in the To:).

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 5 May 2016 at 20:09, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson  
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
 On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
 [snip]
> [snip]
>>> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
>>> all that long ago that openwrt was in bad position and that something
>>> needed to change, and I think that may have been *part* of the reason
>>> accepting the status quo was no longer an acceptable answer.
>>
>> I don't believe that those who are in LEDE now couldn't do anything
>> (that means is was dying in their hands). Actually I'm still under
>
> I guess the real test will be what happens going forward - if LEDE dies
> for the same reasons OpenWrt was dying then that puts paid to LEDE's
> story; it it succeeds then it vindicates them.

I hope the problems will be resolved and we will have one project.

>> impression that they controlled pretty much everything. And the part
>> they didn't control (what exactly?) was only important to them.
>
> I have no clue about this part, I'm not exactly in the loop.  I think
> part of the problem has been that there is no means to add new
> developers, and that suggestions for adding developers have been opposed
> (that's a guess though).

I don't think it was opposed. And I don't think it was a major problem.

>> But I guess we will never know full story, unless both parties are
>> willing to disclose all their private conversations related to
>> project.
>
> Yeah, pretty much we're left guessing unless there is more information
> given.  I'm thinking the LEDE split was not like a conspiratorial split
> where everything is carefully planned out and orchestrated, but more of
> a rapid response (given that this isn't part of paid work for the most
> of them, and even then the LEDE split wouldn't likely be part of the
> job/contract) to something behind the scenes.  Even if the LEDE team is
> unable to post to this list, I hope they give more information using the
> avenues available to them, once they get the chance to do so.

Look at mailing list, commits and domain.
It was all started back in March and was not disclosed. That means the
plans were even earlier.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 12:59 PM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>>> [snip]
[snip]
>> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
>> all that long ago that openwrt was in bad position and that something
>> needed to change, and I think that may have been *part* of the reason
>> accepting the status quo was no longer an acceptable answer.
> 
> I don't believe that those who are in LEDE now couldn't do anything
> (that means is was dying in their hands). Actually I'm still under

I guess the real test will be what happens going forward - if LEDE dies
for the same reasons OpenWrt was dying then that puts paid to LEDE's
story; it it succeeds then it vindicates them.

> impression that they controlled pretty much everything. And the part
> they didn't control (what exactly?) was only important to them.

I have no clue about this part, I'm not exactly in the loop.  I think
part of the problem has been that there is no means to add new
developers, and that suggestions for adding developers have been opposed
(that's a guess though).

> But I guess we will never know full story, unless both parties are
> willing to disclose all their private conversations related to
> project.

Yeah, pretty much we're left guessing unless there is more information
given.  I'm thinking the LEDE split was not like a conspiratorial split
where everything is carefully planned out and orchestrated, but more of
a rapid response (given that this isn't part of paid work for the most
of them, and even then the LEDE split wouldn't likely be part of the
job/contract) to something behind the scenes.  Even if the LEDE team is
unable to post to this list, I hope they give more information using the
avenues available to them, once they get the chance to do so.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 5 May 2016 at 19:29, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
>>> > welcome.
>>>
>>> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
>>> working well together and that this has been a long time coming; perhaps
>>> if something like using a mediator had been considered before things got
>>> to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure
>>> there is a
>>> solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm really not
>>> sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I suspect
>>> a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and don't,
>>> really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
>>> open source project that doesn't fly).
>>>
>>> I don't disagree.  I just see the current state of Openwrt/Lede as a
>>> mess for the community.
>>
>> I agree, I just don't see how the LEDE team could have avoided it
>> without giving up and accepting the broken status quo.
>
> When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
> all that long ago that openwrt was in bad position and that something
> needed to change, and I think that may have been *part* of the reason
> accepting the status quo was no longer an acceptable answer.

I don't believe that those who are in LEDE now couldn't do anything
(that means is was dying in their hands). Actually I'm still under
impression that they controlled pretty much everything. And the part
they didn't control (what exactly?) was only important to them.
But I guess we will never know full story, unless both parties are
willing to disclose all their private conversations related to
project.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Bill]

I confess I am one of those people who has benefited much more than I 
have contributed to the OpenWRT development group. I run a small company 
in which I am the chief developer, administrator, customer support dude, 
marketer, and salesguy. I would LOVE to be able to contribute more to 
the OpenWRT community, and I do try to test things that are in my way 
and report what I find from those tests, but I certainly don't feel I 
pull my weight.


However, in my defense, as you can probably surmise from the description 
of my job, we're not exactly rolling in extra money or time to 
contribute. Which I regret, but it is what it is. Anyone interested in 
joining a currently unfunded startup using OpenWRT, please get in touch.


I recently purchased a WiFi access point that I realized upon plugging 
it in was running a somewhat restricted version of OpenWRT. I won't say 
who makes it, but it's a very clever, one might say ingenious, product 
that I like very much.


However, when I looked at the OpenWRT tree, I could not find an OpenWRT 
build for this particular device. And that, I must say, has REALLY 
annoyed me - the company clearly expended some resources to port OpenWRT 
to their clever device, and certainly benefits from it, but they 
apparently did not contribute the work they did to support this device 
back to the community so it could be "officially" part of the OpenWRT 
ecosystem.


I have also been painfully aware of the infrastructure difficulties that 
OpenWRT has faced, and I have been quietly admiring the work of those 
who keep it running as well as it does. As scary as it was when IBM got 
deeply involved in Linux back in the early 2000s, for instance, I would 
say their involvement has benefited both parties.


OpenWRT is actually a pretty mature and popular codebase, and it 
deserves much better infrastructure than it has now. In order to get a 
better infrastructure, of course, we need, as a community, to attract 
partners with the ability to contribute that infrastructure. It's great 
to be in a project that is not beholden to any big companies UNTIL you 
actually want to get something significant done. Pragmatism has its place.


That's why I was a bit taken aback at the reluctance to embrace prpl's 
offer. I would like to see an organization in which all possible 
partners should be welcomed into the community; while we should be 
appropriately cautious about accepting code from anyone, and subject it 
to strict review as to suitability, fit with mission and architecture, 
and quality, we should be pulling partners in, not holding them at arm's 
length. My hope is that LEDE will either bring this level of pragmatism 
or will enable OpenWRT to be more pragmatic.


Of course, we have to be clear about the mission, architecture, and the 
standards of suitability and quality... perhaps that is the departure 
point for LEDE? I, for one, am eager to better understand, in full 
atomic granularity, the problems that have led to this departure and 
what, again, in atomic granularity, LEDE proposes to do differently.


My thinking is that, if OpenWRT or LEDE is able to attract more support 
from the corporate world, it will serve as an example to those who are 
using OpenWRT/LEDE of what is expected of a larger company that is 
gaining from the use of the software, hopefully pressuring them to step 
up and be better members of the community. I also think that it will 
lead to more visibility, which can help bring in folks like me who have 
an idea and can leverage off of OpenWRT/LEDE to produce products that 
are out of the mainstream.


I'm not privy to all, indeed, any, of the discussions that have led to 
this point of departure; I am commenting as a strict outsider. My simple 
desire is to see the codebase continue to grow, in both code and users, 
and the community to be as open and welcoming as possible. I hope that 
this move will help achieve that for at least one of the resultant 
groups. And I shall do what I can to help either or both. My last 
comment is that the more open of the two communities is likely to be the 
one where I can most easily see how I might contribute.


-Bill

--
Bill Moffitt
Ayrstone Productivity LLC

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 12:24 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> [snip]
>> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
>> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
>> > welcome.
>>
>> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
>> working well together and that this has been a long time coming; perhaps
>> if something like using a mediator had been considered before things got
>> to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure
>> there is a
>> solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm really not
>> sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I suspect
>> a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and don't,
>> really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
>> open source project that doesn't fly).
>>
>> I don't disagree.  I just see the current state of Openwrt/Lede as a
>> mess for the community.
> 
> I agree, I just don't see how the LEDE team could have avoided it
> without giving up and accepting the broken status quo.

When I say broken I mean I think openwrt was dying and I pointed out not
all that long ago that openwrt was in bad position and that something
needed to change, and I think that may have been *part* of the reason
accepting the status quo was no longer an acceptable answer.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 12:21 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
[snip]
> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
> > welcome.
> 
> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
> working well together and that this has been a long time coming; perhaps
> if something like using a mediator had been considered before things got
> to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure
> there is a
> solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm really not
> sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I suspect
> a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and don't,
> really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
> open source project that doesn't fly).
> 
> I don't disagree.  I just see the current state of Openwrt/Lede as a
> mess for the community.

I agree, I just don't see how the LEDE team could have avoided it
without giving up and accepting the broken status quo.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Jonathan Bennett]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM Daniel Dickinson <
open...@daniel.thecshore.com> wrote:

> On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> > There is plenty of blame to go around, I think.  Seems like the Lede
> > guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> > leadership privately that they were planning this venture.  The surprise
>
> The problem is that LEDE is pretty much who should be considered
> "OpenWrt Leadership" IMO as they are the majority of ones doing the
> actual work.  This isn't like working for some bad corp (I currently
> have good managers so it's better than for me even at work) where there
> are (supposed to be) execs making the decisions regardless of what those
> doing the work think.
>
> > announcement must have felt very much like a stab in the back. "Et tu,
> > brute?" and all that.  I think they want a "friendly fork" as much as
> > possible, but they dropped the ball in how they announced it.  I suspect
> > that a private email to mbm and kaloz could have gone a long ways
> > towards heading off problems.  As has been pointed out, the public
>
> I think the reason for no private email was either fear of retaliation
> or something major had already happened 'behind-the-scenes' that made
> that moot.
>
> I'm not sure their silence is entirely their choice as well (as in I
> find the lack of any posts has me wondering if they can post).
>
> > announcement should not have come from an @openwrt.org
> >  email.
>
> That much I agree with.
>
> >
> > That said, deleting their emails was totally uncalled for.  Seems that
> > those should be restored, perhaps with the caveat that they are more
> > carefully used with regards to Lede, aka, not for publicizing or
> > promoting it.
> >
> > Guys, for the love of the project, the users, and all else that is good,
> > please don't make this a ffmpeg/libav split.  Openwrt has been an
> > amazing thing for a long time, and if mishandled, this has the potential
> > to actually kill it.
> >
> > The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
> > splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
> > welcome.
>
> Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
> working well together and that this has been a long time coming; perhaps
> if something like using a mediator had been considered before things got
> to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure there is a
> solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm really not
> sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I suspect
> a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and don't,
> really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
> open source project that doesn't fly).
>
I don't disagree.  I just see the current state of Openwrt/Lede as a mess
for the community.

>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 11:38 AM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:
> There is plenty of blame to go around, I think.  Seems like the Lede
> guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
> leadership privately that they were planning this venture.  The surprise

The problem is that LEDE is pretty much who should be considered
"OpenWrt Leadership" IMO as they are the majority of ones doing the
actual work.  This isn't like working for some bad corp (I currently
have good managers so it's better than for me even at work) where there
are (supposed to be) execs making the decisions regardless of what those
doing the work think.

> announcement must have felt very much like a stab in the back. "Et tu,
> brute?" and all that.  I think they want a "friendly fork" as much as
> possible, but they dropped the ball in how they announced it.  I suspect
> that a private email to mbm and kaloz could have gone a long ways
> towards heading off problems.  As has been pointed out, the public

I think the reason for no private email was either fear of retaliation
or something major had already happened 'behind-the-scenes' that made
that moot.

I'm not sure their silence is entirely their choice as well (as in I
find the lack of any posts has me wondering if they can post).

> announcement should not have come from an @openwrt.org
>  email.

That much I agree with.

> 
> That said, deleting their emails was totally uncalled for.  Seems that
> those should be restored, perhaps with the caveat that they are more
> carefully used with regards to Lede, aka, not for publicizing or
> promoting it.
> 
> Guys, for the love of the project, the users, and all else that is good,
> please don't make this a ffmpeg/libav split.  Openwrt has been an
> amazing thing for a long time, and if mishandled, this has the potential
> to actually kill it.
> 
> The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
> splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
> welcome.

Let's just say that there are strong personalities who haven't been
working well together and that this has been a long time coming; perhaps
if something like using a mediator had been considered before things got
to this point it would have helped.  At this point I'm not sure there is a
solution unless both sides are willing to bend a little (I'm really not
sure who has been flexible and who has not, but as I have said I suspect
a large part of the issue is that 'management' (who aren't and don't,
really) has overruled those doing the majority of the work and in an
open source project that doesn't fly).

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Jonathan Bennett]

There is plenty of blame to go around, I think.  Seems like the Lede guys
should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt leadership
privately that they were planning this venture.  The surprise announcement
must have felt very much like a stab in the back. "Et tu, brute?" and all
that.  I think they want a "friendly fork" as much as possible, but they
dropped the ball in how they announced it.  I suspect that a private email
to mbm and kaloz could have gone a long ways towards heading off problems.
As has been pointed out, the public announcement should not have come from
an @openwrt.org email.

That said, deleting their emails was totally uncalled for.  Seems that
those should be restored, perhaps with the caveat that they are more
carefully used with regards to Lede, aka, not for publicizing or promoting
it.

Guys, for the love of the project, the users, and all else that is good,
please don't make this a ffmpeg/libav split.  Openwrt has been an amazing
thing for a long time, and if mishandled, this has the potential to
actually kill it.

The changes that the Lede guys are suggesting would be welcome, but
splitting the project and community with an ugly fork is very much not
welcome.

--Jonathan Bennett

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM John Clark  wrote:

>  >>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
> addresses somewhat undermines this
>
> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email
> addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking OpenWrt? Seriously?
> How did you not think that wasn't going to go well after all they have
> done for OpenWrt?
>
> --John
>
>
> On 5/5/16 11:04 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> > On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson 
> wrote:
> >> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> >>> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson 
> wrote:
>  On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
> > Dear OpenWrt community,
> >
> >> [snip]
> >>> One simple question:
> >>> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
> >>> non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
> >>> discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?
> >>>
> >>> If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
> >>> the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
> >>> away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
> >>> biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
> >>> moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
> >>> month at least). Hate double standards.
> >> Perhaps for fear of repercussions such as what has happened since the
> >> fork where all LEDE members @openwrt.org email addresses have been
> deleted?
> > AFAIK, that was done after LEDE announcement but IMO was a wrong move
> anyway.
> >
> >> There are a number of people in the LEDE group I've found to be pretty
> >> decent people, and great to work with, so I find it unlikely that they
> >> simply acted without good reason.
> > This only add more shock to the announcement.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Roman
> > ___
> > 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Petre]

On 05/05/2016 06:38 PM, Jonathan Bennett wrote:

There is plenty of blame to go around, I think.  Seems like the Lede
guys should have had the decency to at least inform the Openwrt
leadership privately that they were planning this venture.


If i read correctly the feedback from the LEDE guys (and many of the 
people in here) then it seems EVEN THEY did not had any serious real 
feedback since a while ago from the main OpenWrt "headquarters".


So.. what do you do when you ask (probably several times) and do not get 
any answer at all.. ?

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 11:11 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email
> addresses somewhat undermines this
> 
> Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email

@openwrt.org actually

> addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking OpenWrt? Seriously? 

Yep.

> How did you not think that wasn't going to go well after all they have
> done for OpenWrt?

I think you mean "How did you think that wasn't *not* going to go well
after all they have done for OpenWrt".

Regards,

Daniel

> 
> --John
> 
> 
> On 5/5/16 11:04 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson
>>  wrote:
>>> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
 On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson
  wrote:
> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>
>>> [snip]
 One simple question:
 If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
 non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
 discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?

 If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
 the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
 away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
 biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
 moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
 month at least). Hate double standards.
>>> Perhaps for fear of repercussions such as what has happened since the
>>> fork where all LEDE members @openwrt.org email addresses have been
>>> deleted?
>> AFAIK, that was done after LEDE announcement but IMO was a wrong move
>> anyway.
>>
>>> There are a number of people in the LEDE group I've found to be pretty
>>> decent people, and great to work with, so I find it unlikely that they
>>> simply acted without good reason.
>> This only add more shock to the announcement.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Roman
>> ___
>> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[John Clark]

>>the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email 
addresses somewhat undermines this


Just so I am not jumping to wrong conclusions, their *.openwrt.org email 
addresses were deleted in retaliation for forking OpenWrt? Seriously?  
How did you not think that wasn't going to go well after all they have 
done for OpenWrt?


--John


On 5/5/16 11:04 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:

On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:

On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:

On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:

On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:

Dear OpenWrt community,


[snip]

One simple question:
If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?

If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
month at least). Hate double standards.

Perhaps for fear of repercussions such as what has happened since the
fork where all LEDE members @openwrt.org email addresses have been deleted?

AFAIK, that was done after LEDE announcement but IMO was a wrong move anyway.


There are a number of people in the LEDE group I've found to be pretty
decent people, and great to work with, so I find it unlikely that they
simply acted without good reason.

This only add more shock to the announcement.

Regards,
Roman
___
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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 5 May 2016 at 17:43, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
>> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson  
>> wrote:
>>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
 Dear OpenWrt community,

> [snip]
>>
>> One simple question:
>> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
>> non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
>> discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?
>>
>> If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
>> the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
>> away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
>> biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
>> moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
>> month at least). Hate double standards.
>
> Perhaps for fear of repercussions such as what has happened since the
> fork where all LEDE members @openwrt.org email addresses have been deleted?

AFAIK, that was done after LEDE announcement but IMO was a wrong move anyway.

> There are a number of people in the LEDE group I've found to be pretty
> decent people, and great to work with, so I find it unlikely that they
> simply acted without good reason.

This only add more shock to the announcement.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-05 05:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>>
[snip]
> 
> One simple question:
> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
> non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
> discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?
> 
> If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
> the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
> away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
> biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
> moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
> month at least). Hate double standards.

Perhaps for fear of repercussions such as what has happened since the
fork where all LEDE members @openwrt.org email addresses have been deleted?

There are a number of people in the LEDE group I've found to be pretty
decent people, and great to work with, so I find it unlikely that they
simply acted without good reason.

Regards,

Daniel

> 
> 
>>> We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
>>> occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model,
>>> the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have
>>> been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a
>>
>> Perhaps 'under-the-hood' is the problem.  Did everyone with concerns
>> know or have insight into what steps were currently being taken and what
>> was planned, and have planned actions been followed through on, once
>> *agreed* as a solution?
>>
>> Also, is the decision making process egalitarian and democratic amongst
>> those still actively in the project, or are some 'more equal' than others?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Daniel
>> ___
>> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Felix Fietkau]

Hi Mike,

thank you for reaching out to us and for your interest in addressing
these issues.

On 2016-05-04 21:01, mbm wrote:
> Dear OpenWrt community,
> 
> It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read 
> about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no 
> prior announcement nor clues this would happen.
> 
> While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffers from a number of 
> issues outlined by Jo-Philip, in each of the 5 bullet points, we do not 
> agree with the conclusions withdrawn, and even less so in deciding to 
> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the 
> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both 
> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true 
> nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points 
> which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a 
> public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the 
> email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.
Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often
squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned
toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues.
Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for
changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project.

> OpenWrt is primarily developed by individuals who may have a day job 
> more or less related to the purpose or the technologies of the project, 
> but who strive to maintain OpenWrt as independent as possible  from any 
> company, organization or interest group, thus maintaining its own 
> infrastructure (website, forums, mailing-lists, bugtracker...), which 
> has been usually at the heart of all debates.
A critical part of many of these debates was the fact that people who
were controlling critical pieces of the infrastructure flat out refused
to allow other people to step up and help, even in the face of being
unable to deal with important issues themselves in a timely manner.

This kind of single-point-of-failure thing has been going on for years,
with no significant progress on resolving it.

In the LEDE project we decided to significantly simplify the
infrastructure and spread out admin access enough to minimize the chance
of this situation ever happening again.

> We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several 
> occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model, 
> the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have 
> been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a 
> time, starting with a more decentralized infrastructure, which was 
> discussed with the LEDE developers as well.
While we have pushed for and actively worked on decentralizing the
infrastructure, we were also frequently asked to move back to
centralizing things again.
The excessive downtime of the main site this year is a good example of
why we definitely don't want to go that way.

> At this point, we do not have much to offer to the LEDE developers but 
> to encourage them to publicly discuss on
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org the different items we should all be 
> fixing together, and avoid spinning off so that all decisions can be 
> taken with the community's involvement, and accountability and 
> transparency can rule us as one community.
Do you think we can get the changes outlined by the LEDE project
implement in OpenWrt? If so, how?

> As a user, developer, contributor, or just community member, whatever 
> choice you make, keep the choice that matters to you: the ability to 
> utilize superior quality open source software to power whatever embedded 
> device that matters to you!
> 
> We would like to stress that we do want to have an open discussion and 
> resolve matters at hand. Our goal is to work with all parties who can 
> and want to contribute to OpenWrt, including the LEDE team.
We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this, however
the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email addresses
somewhat undermines this.
We will not respond in kind and we will continue to maintain the
critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure that we control.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Aaron Z]

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
>
> But as someone who is following, using, building upon and sometimes
> contributing to OpenWRT since ~10 years I can only say that the only
> developers who have been visible, reacting and committing stuff have
> left. I still wonder why, of course...
+1 (although I might change "the only" to "the majority of the").

Aaron Z
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
— Robert Heinlein, Time Enough for Love
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Bruno Randolf]

On 05/05/16 13:48, Zoltan HERPAI wrote:
> I would not call "all active OpenWrt core developers" have left the
> boat. Take a look at this [1] page - some of them are active, some of
> them are not, but calling an end to the project is an overstatement at
> least. Also, refer to the mail Mike sent out last night.

Well, you are right, I should not make predictions of the future... ;)

But as someone who is following, using, building upon and sometimes
contributing to OpenWRT since ~10 years I can only say that the only
developers who have been visible, reacting and committing stuff have
left. I still wonder why, of course...

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hi,

On Thu, 5 May 2016, Bruno Randolf wrote:


On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani  wrote:

Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
OpenWrt Project.
But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing that.


My conclusion is: As all active OpenWRT core developers have left the
boat there must be something going on behind the scenes, which they feel
can not be fixed within OpenWRT. If they don't change their mind, that's
probably the end of OpenWRT, then...


I would not call "all active OpenWrt core developers" have left the boat. 
Take a look at this [1] page - some of them are active, some of them are 
not, but calling an end to the project is an overstatement at least. 
Also, refer to the mail Mike sent out last night.


Thanks,
-w-

[1] 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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Carlos Ferreira]

I don't see the end of OpenWRT as a bad thing.
If LEDE is basically a fork but without the development bottlenecks that
seem to be affecting OpenwRT, then the change can be easily done by the
industry segment that uses OpenWRT for their products. In fact, I see it as
a good thing because it means that there are developers who care about the
future of such embedded development environment.

On 5 May 2016 at 12:32, Bruno Randolf  wrote:

> On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani 
> wrote:
> >> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
> >> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the
> holders
> >> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within
> the
> >> OpenWrt Project.
> >> But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing
> that.
>
> My conclusion is: As all active OpenWRT core developers have left the
> boat there must be something going on behind the scenes, which they feel
> can not be fixed within OpenWRT. If they don't change their mind, that's
> probably the end of OpenWRT, then...
>
> bruno
> ___
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>



-- 

Carlos Miguel Ferreira
Researcher at Telecommunications Institute
Aveiro - Portugal
Work E-mail - c...@av.it.pt
Skype & GTalk -> carlosmf...@gmail.com
LinkedIn -> http://www.linkedin.com/in/carlosmferreira
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Bruno Randolf]

On 05/05/16 02:02, Kathy Giori wrote:
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani  
> wrote:
>> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
>> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
>> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
>> OpenWrt Project.
>> But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing that.

My conclusion is: As all active OpenWRT core developers have left the
boat there must be something going on behind the scenes, which they feel
can not be fixed within OpenWRT. If they don't change their mind, that's
probably the end of OpenWRT, then...

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[John Clark]

>Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
existing project?

The hasty reasons given and the secret and abrupt severing of ties make me
wonder if a "follow the money" approach will yield more plausible answers
to the questions being raised.


On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Roman Yeryomin 
wrote:

> On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson 
> wrote:
> > On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
> >> Dear OpenWrt community,
> >>
> >> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
> >> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
> >> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
> >> nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points
> >
> > Can you be more specific about what you believe is LEDE's 'true nature'?
> >
> >> which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a
> >> public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the
> >> email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.
> >
> > This is a guess: perhaps it is connected to the fact that Felix's
> > n...@openwrt.org address now bounces, and that actions were taken which
> > were deemed to be over-the-top by the LEDE team?  Certainly there is a
> > great deal more doing on that either side is saying in public (which
> > might be just as well since there seems to be a fair amount of bad
> > feelings on both sides).
>
> One simple question:
> If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
> non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
> discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?
>
> If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
> the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
> away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
> biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
> moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
> month at least). Hate double standards.
>
>
> >> We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
> >> occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model,
> >> the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have
> >> been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a
> >
> > Perhaps 'under-the-hood' is the problem.  Did everyone with concerns
> > know or have insight into what steps were currently being taken and what
> > was planned, and have planned actions been followed through on, once
> > *agreed* as a solution?
> >
> > Also, is the decision making process egalitarian and democratic amongst
> > those still actively in the project, or are some 'more equal' than
> others?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Daniel
> > ___
> > 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 5 May 2016 at 06:48, Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>
>> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
>> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
>> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
>> nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points
>
> Can you be more specific about what you believe is LEDE's 'true nature'?
>
>> which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a
>> public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the
>> email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.
>
> This is a guess: perhaps it is connected to the fact that Felix's
> n...@openwrt.org address now bounces, and that actions were taken which
> were deemed to be over-the-top by the LEDE team?  Certainly there is a
> great deal more doing on that either side is saying in public (which
> might be just as well since there seems to be a fair amount of bad
> feelings on both sides).

One simple question:
If LEDE team members are the ones who were suffering from some
non-democratic decisions, why didn't they bring it to public
discussion for community? At least on devel maillist?

If it was clear problem in remaining OpenWrt team then LEDE would win
the community right away or maybe problematic people would just go
away. Either way it would be more fair and open. And this is one of my
biggest concerns - LEDE team is promoting openness but didn't do their
moves openly (looking at maillists it seems they were hiding it for
month at least). Hate double standards.


>> We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
>> occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model,
>> the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have
>> been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a
>
> Perhaps 'under-the-hood' is the problem.  Did everyone with concerns
> know or have insight into what steps were currently being taken and what
> was planned, and have planned actions been followed through on, once
> *agreed* as a solution?
>
> Also, is the decision making process egalitarian and democratic amongst
> those still actively in the project, or are some 'more equal' than others?
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 04:01 PM, mbm wrote:
> Dear OpenWrt community,
> 
> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
> nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points

Can you be more specific about what you believe is LEDE's 'true nature'?

> which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a
> public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the
> email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.

This is a guess: perhaps it is connected to the fact that Felix's
n...@openwrt.org address now bounces, and that actions were taken which
were deemed to be over-the-top by the LEDE team?  Certainly there is a
great deal more doing on that either side is saying in public (which
might be just as well since there seems to be a fair amount of bad
feelings on both sides).

> We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
> occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model,
> the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have
> been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a

Perhaps 'under-the-hood' is the problem.  Did everyone with concerns
know or have insight into what steps were currently being taken and what
was planned, and have planned actions been followed through on, once
*agreed* as a solution?

Also, is the decision making process egalitarian and democratic amongst
those still actively in the project, or are some 'more equal' than others?

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Fernando Frediani  wrote:
> Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
> I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
> of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
> OpenWrt Project.
> But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing that.

If it is too late to stop the "project" teams from having their
independence from each other, can there at least be a common core for
both projects, where all the kernel and board support stuff lives for
example? And whatever else makes sense not to be duplicated? Let the
differences exist at a higher layer, ideally more cosmetic. Share as
much as possible. Communicate ideas for the common core openly.
Leverage each others skills for a greater overall benefit.

Would this idea work? I recommend that both groups propose whatever
solutions they can think of to reduce duplication of effort and to
avoid further community confusion and frustration.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Fernando Frediani]

Thanks Daniel. That explains a lot.
I imagine if some digging is done it would be possible to find the holders
of the critical resources and then re-organize it from scratch within the
OpenWrt Project.
But as the fork has already happened there is no much point in doing that.

Regards,
Fernando

On 4 May 2016 at 21:05, Daniel Dickinson 
wrote:

> On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> > Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the
> > new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes
> > inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the
> > LEDE Project ideas ?
>
> I don't know if there is a project charter, but from when I was
> developer (I step aside because I was having personal issues not openwrt
> related) I wasn't aware of an actual voting mechanism or constitution
> that said majority rules.  I'm not sure that there is an actual
> democratic method of decision making in the current framework.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 07:59 PM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the
> new project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes
> inside OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the
> LEDE Project ideas ?

I don't know if there is a project charter, but from when I was
developer (I step aside because I was having personal issues not openwrt
related) I wasn't aware of an actual voting mechanism or constitution
that said majority rules.  I'm not sure that there is an actual
democratic method of decision making in the current framework.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Fernando Frediani]

Just curious to know by the names that signed the announcement of the new
project being know OpenWrt Developers why weren't there enough votes inside
OpenWrt to do this reboot and reorganize it completely under the LEDE
Project ideas ?

The LEDE ideas are great and the the long time and outstanding issues with
OpenWrt are known to most people here, but I personally suspect if these
changes were done inside the OpenWrt Project, even if there are
disagreements would be more benefits in long term. May be wrong, but it´s
my impression.

Fernando


On 4 May 2016 at 18:40, Daniel Dickinson 
wrote:

> On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
> > Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> > industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> > OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> > this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
> > industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
> > who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.
>
> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as being as
> concrete examples of companies contributing back to openwrt, rather than
> just benefiting from it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 07:21 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>>
>>> Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> It also seems to me (as an outsider) that those who do contribute are
> small open-source minded companies, and that's a fairly small pool to
> draw from IMO.  Perhaps there is a lot more contributions than most of
> us not 'in-the-know' are aware of, but there is a reason for the
> impression you mention.

To clarify: it's not that I don't think those contributions are
important - every contribution helps, just that if's a choice between
the LEDE developers and what is visible from other sources, LEDE seems
to have more contributions.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 07:32 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
> 
> Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking.
> It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are
> to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big
> industry members to better "see" that problem, and to use prpl to help
> them do something about it.

That is definitely a worthwhile goal, that I'd like come to fruition.

> 
> I see two main reasons for the lack of contributions problem (not
> developer fault).
> 1. short-term focus. Industry rushes to meet product release schedules
> and managers are too often not aware of the downstream maintenance
> burdens they will face later, by not integrating their changes
> properly into the Linux kernel (and OpenWrt).
> 2. legal. I could blab about this problem for days, but mainly there
> is a fear of open source licensing when compared to the value of
> giving back. This type of FUD problem is perhaps one that prpl could
> help address too, through educational efforts.

That matches my experiences.

> 
> As an example of a contribution, prpl is promoting the OpenWrt "board
> farm" project, intended to support automated testing (of trunk) on
> various platforms on a daily basis. The test framework was in fact
> contributed by industry.
> 
> Now imagine the new problem that industry faces if they want to give
> back. Do they have to push changes back into two different/similar
> project branches? Do they need to setup two board farms or double the
> test time? Will some companies choose to push to OpenWrt and others to
> LEDE, leaving the end-user to figure out which project's software will
> run on their board?
> 
> In my opinion, the OpenWrt core team members need to setup some
> policies and procedures (e.g., take ideas from the LEDE objectives)

Not being an insider this is only a guess, but it seems to me that
efforts to reach an internal solution have been stymied by some
part(y|ies) that balk at what the LEDE team wants to see happen, and the
LEDE team is tired of fighting when they are the ones (at least to
outside appearances) the ones doing the majority of the work.

> that allow the fairness and flexibility that is desired, so that only

TBH I don't think it's the LEDE team that needs to get that message.

> one OpenWrt development branch continues to be developed. Reducing the
> core team to the LEDE subgroup will take away from the diversity of
> the project at the core, and I don't see that as a good thing. Yes,
> collaboration in a diverse environment is harder, but research has
> shown repeatedly that companies with staff diversity perform better.

Collaboration requires the cooperation of those you are supposed to
collaborate with, and willingness of both sides to be flexible.  Not
knowing the specifics I can't speak to whether this is a case of mutual
inflexibility or one-sided.  Certainly some of the members of the LEDE
team seem to be people who attempt to reach mutual satisfactory
conclusions, and one individual in particular emailed my privately when
I was upset and expressed it on list, and helped me to see things
differently, and I believe that individual is also part of the reason
the problems listed as reasons for the fork have been publicly acknowledged.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Kathy Giori]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:40 PM, Daniel Dickinson
 wrote:
> On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
>> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
>> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
>> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
>> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
>> industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
>> who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.
>
> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as being as
> concrete examples of companies contributing back to openwrt, rather than
> just benefiting from it?
>

Daniel I fully concur that industry "give back" is severely lacking.
It seems to me that the bigger the company, the less likely they are
to give back. One of the goals of the prpl Foundation was to help big
industry members to better "see" that problem, and to use prpl to help
them do something about it.

I see two main reasons for the lack of contributions problem (not
developer fault).
1. short-term focus. Industry rushes to meet product release schedules
and managers are too often not aware of the downstream maintenance
burdens they will face later, by not integrating their changes
properly into the Linux kernel (and OpenWrt).
2. legal. I could blab about this problem for days, but mainly there
is a fear of open source licensing when compared to the value of
giving back. This type of FUD problem is perhaps one that prpl could
help address too, through educational efforts.

As an example of a contribution, prpl is promoting the OpenWrt "board
farm" project, intended to support automated testing (of trunk) on
various platforms on a daily basis. The test framework was in fact
contributed by industry.

Now imagine the new problem that industry faces if they want to give
back. Do they have to push changes back into two different/similar
project branches? Do they need to setup two board farms or double the
test time? Will some companies choose to push to OpenWrt and others to
LEDE, leaving the end-user to figure out which project's software will
run on their board?

In my opinion, the OpenWrt core team members need to setup some
policies and procedures (e.g., take ideas from the LEDE objectives)
that allow the fairness and flexibility that is desired, so that only
one OpenWrt development branch continues to be developed. Reducing the
core team to the LEDE subgroup will take away from the diversity of
the project at the core, and I don't see that as a good thing. Yes,
collaboration in a diverse environment is harder, but research has
shown repeatedly that companies with staff diversity perform better.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 07:01 PM, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
>>
>> Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
>>>
>>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
>>> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back to
>>> openwrt, rather than just benefiting from it?
>>
>> Every commit from me. We're a tiny company who mostly works in
>> userspace, but we occasionally find tings to fix and fix them.
>> This apparently common idea that companies are running around
>> using openwrt and never contributing anything back just doesn't
>> seem to match any sort of reality.
> 
> I can't mention specifics, but I've seen it happen, more than once.
> What doesn't seem to be clear is how common one vs. the other is (I mean
> it's not like anyone really seems to be advertising what they are doing
> either way).

It also seems to me (as an outsider) that those who do contribute are
small open-source minded companies, and that's a fairly small pool to
draw from IMO.  Perhaps there is a lot more contributions than most of
us not 'in-the-know' are aware of, but there is a reason for the
impression you mention.

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 06:52 PM, Karl Palsson wrote:
> 
> Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
>>
>> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
>> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
>> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back to
>> openwrt, rather than just benefiting from it?
> 
> Every commit from me. We're a tiny company who mostly works in
> userspace, but we occasionally find tings to fix and fix them.
> This apparently common idea that companies are running around
> using openwrt and never contributing anything back just doesn't
> seem to match any sort of reality.

I can't mention specifics, but I've seen it happen, more than once.
What doesn't seem to be clear is how common one vs. the other is (I mean
it's not like anyone really seems to be advertising what they are doing
either way).

Regards,

Daniel



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Karl Palsson]

Daniel Dickinson  wrote:
> 
> Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
> contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as
> being as concrete examples of companies contributing back to
> openwrt, rather than just benefiting from it?

Every commit from me. We're a tiny company who mostly works in
userspace, but we occasionally find tings to fix and fix them.
This apparently common idea that companies are running around
using openwrt and never contributing anything back just doesn't
seem to match any sort of reality.

Sincerely,
Karl P

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Bob Call]

On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 21:19 +0100, tapper wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:
> > 
> > Dear OpenWrt community,
> > 
> > It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we
> > read
> > about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was
> > no
> > prior announcement nor clues this would happen.
> > 
> > While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffers from a
> > number of
> > issues outlined by Jo-Philip, in each of the 5 bullet points, we do
> > not
> > agree with the conclusions withdrawn, and even less so in deciding
> > to
> > spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
> > project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are
> > both
> > vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its
> > true
> > nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid
> > points
> > which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix,
> > in a
> > public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the
> > email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.
> > 
> > OpenWrt is primarily developed by individuals who may have a day
> > job
> > more or less related to the purpose or the technologies of the
> > project,
> > but who strive to maintain OpenWrt as independent as possible  from
> > any
> > company, organization or interest group, thus maintaining its own
> > infrastructure (website, forums, mailing-lists, bugtracker...),
> > which
> > has been usually at the heart of all debates.
> > 
> > We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
> > occasions about some directions of the project, about the release
> > model,
> > the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there
> > have
> > been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step
> > at a
> > time, starting with a more decentralized infrastructure, which was
> > discussed with the LEDE developers as well.
> > 
> > At this point, we do not have much to offer to the LEDE developers
> > but
> > to encourage them to publicly discuss on
> > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org the different items we should all
> > be
> > fixing together, and avoid spinning off so that all decisions can
> > be
> > taken with the community's involvement, and accountability and
> > transparency can rule us as one community.
> > 
> > As a user, developer, contributor, or just community member,
> > whatever
> > choice you make, keep the choice that matters to you: the ability
> > to
> > utilize superior quality open source software to power whatever
> > embedded
> > device that matters to you!
> > 
> > We would like to stress that we do want to have an open discussion
> > and
> > resolve matters at hand. Our goal is to work with all parties who
> > can
> > and want to contribute to OpenWrt, including the LEDE team.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > Your OpenWrt team
> > __
> But just who is "Your OpenWrt team?"
> After all the talk about fixing the website and the forum we as the 
> openwrt end users got jack shit! Even wen we offered to do things for
> you.
> 

I'm kind of split on this issue because I run a faltering OpenWRT fork,
feel that OpenWRT has grown beyond the scope of an "embedded" OS/distro
and the goals of LEDE don't fix the faults with OpenWRT or its
community.

There are many issues that need to be addressed and maybe the only way
that some could start the conversation was to start a fork. Sometimes,
great things come out of forks and eventually make it back upstream
(some cerowrt work comes to mind). Regardless of the reason for the
fork, the community at large can start a conversation and work to
resolve everyone's issues in a sane way.

I started my fork due to philosophical and technical reasons with the
intent of address concerns that many in the free software community
have, but during my work on this fork, I've found that:

* Many components in OpenWRT are becoming too bloated and make it
difficult to use some lower-end routers/targets without neutering
commonly wanted functionality. While this is not fully OpenWRT's fault,
it would be good to start making an effort to get some upstream
projects to work on reducing their footprint.

* OpenWRT is still using md5 checks for their source packages and lacks
signatures for most, if not all, of its source packages.

* OpenWRT's documentation is non-free due to the CC-NC-SA licensing,
which means that anyone who wanted to sell OpenWRT on a product with
documentation would have to fully re-write it from scratch.

* OpenWRT works to support too many devices and the quality is lacking
on quite a few targets. While development focus is mainly on a hand
full of targets, this does lead to bad experiences for many end-users
who are not technical enough to help debug or fix issues. It would also
help if poor hardware was not supported in the first place.

Personally, I'd like to see a project which focuses on actual embedded
systems 

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Álvaro Fernández Rojas]

El 04/05/2016 a las 23:40, Daniel Dickinson escribió:

On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:

Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.

Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as being as
concrete examples of companies contributing back to openwrt, rather than
just benefiting from it?

Regards,

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

+1 to Daniel's question.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Daniel Dickinson]

On 16-05-04 12:25 PM, Kathy Giori wrote:
> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
> industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
> who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.

Silly question, but can you outline some specific examples of
contributions that an outsider like me has somehow missed as being as
concrete examples of companies contributing back to openwrt, rather than
just benefiting from it?

Regards,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 4 May 2016 at 23:19, tapper  wrote:
> On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:
>>
>> Dear OpenWrt community,
>>
>> It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
>> about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
>> prior announcement nor clues this would happen.
>>
>> While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffers from a number of
>> issues outlined by Jo-Philip, in each of the 5 bullet points, we do not
>> agree with the conclusions withdrawn, and even less so in deciding to
>> spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
>> project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
>> vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
>> nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points
>> which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a
>> public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the
>> email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.
>>
>> OpenWrt is primarily developed by individuals who may have a day job
>> more or less related to the purpose or the technologies of the project,
>> but who strive to maintain OpenWrt as independent as possible  from any
>> company, organization or interest group, thus maintaining its own
>> infrastructure (website, forums, mailing-lists, bugtracker...), which
>> has been usually at the heart of all debates.
>>
>> We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
>> occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model,
>> the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have
>> been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a
>> time, starting with a more decentralized infrastructure, which was
>> discussed with the LEDE developers as well.
>>
>> At this point, we do not have much to offer to the LEDE developers but
>> to encourage them to publicly discuss on
>> openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org the different items we should all be
>> fixing together, and avoid spinning off so that all decisions can be
>> taken with the community's involvement, and accountability and
>> transparency can rule us as one community.
>>
>> As a user, developer, contributor, or just community member, whatever
>> choice you make, keep the choice that matters to you: the ability to
>> utilize superior quality open source software to power whatever embedded
>> device that matters to you!
>>
>> We would like to stress that we do want to have an open discussion and
>> resolve matters at hand. Our goal is to work with all parties who can
>> and want to contribute to OpenWrt, including the LEDE team.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Your OpenWrt team
>> __
>
>
> But just who is "Your OpenWrt team?"
> After all the talk about fixing the website and the forum we as the openwrt
> end users got jack shit! Even wen we offered to do things for you.
>

Probably one of the problems is that not all read all communication
channels. I think that developers are more used to mailing list.
Blaming only those who left doesn't make any sense, IMO all are responsible.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[tapper]

On 04/05/2016 21:01, mbm wrote:

Dear OpenWrt community,

It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read
about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no
prior announcement nor clues this would happen.

While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffers from a number of
issues outlined by Jo-Philip, in each of the 5 bullet points, we do not
agree with the conclusions withdrawn, and even less so in deciding to
spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the
project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both
vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true
nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points
which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a
public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the
email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.

OpenWrt is primarily developed by individuals who may have a day job
more or less related to the purpose or the technologies of the project,
but who strive to maintain OpenWrt as independent as possible  from any
company, organization or interest group, thus maintaining its own
infrastructure (website, forums, mailing-lists, bugtracker...), which
has been usually at the heart of all debates.

We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several
occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model,
the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have
been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a
time, starting with a more decentralized infrastructure, which was
discussed with the LEDE developers as well.

At this point, we do not have much to offer to the LEDE developers but
to encourage them to publicly discuss on
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org the different items we should all be
fixing together, and avoid spinning off so that all decisions can be
taken with the community's involvement, and accountability and
transparency can rule us as one community.

As a user, developer, contributor, or just community member, whatever
choice you make, keep the choice that matters to you: the ability to
utilize superior quality open source software to power whatever embedded
device that matters to you!

We would like to stress that we do want to have an open discussion and
resolve matters at hand. Our goal is to work with all parties who can
and want to contribute to OpenWrt, including the LEDE team.

Sincerely,
Your OpenWrt team
__


But just who is "Your OpenWrt team?"
After all the talk about fixing the website and the forum we as the 
openwrt end users got jack shit! Even wen we offered to do things for you.


_

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] Introducing the LEDE project

[mbm]

Dear OpenWrt community,

It is with a great amount of surprise that, like all of you, we read 
about the announcement of the LEDE project yesterday, as there was no 
prior announcement nor clues this would happen.


While we recognize the current OpenWrt project suffers from a number of 
issues outlined by Jo-Philip, in each of the 5 bullet points, we do not 
agree with the conclusions withdrawn, and even less so in deciding to 
spin off the OpenWrt project in the first place as a way to fix the 
project and its community. Also, the phrases such as a "reboot" are both 
vague and misleading and the LEDE project failed to identify its true 
nature. The LEDE announcement  contains a number of very valid points 
which we hoped we had an opportunity to discuss and attempt to fix, in a 
public manner, before this more radical outcome. At this point, the 
email as well as actions taken are very confusing to a lot of us.


OpenWrt is primarily developed by individuals who may have a day job 
more or less related to the purpose or the technologies of the project, 
but who strive to maintain OpenWrt as independent as possible  from any 
company, organization or interest group, thus maintaining its own 
infrastructure (website, forums, mailing-lists, bugtracker...), which 
has been usually at the heart of all debates.


We do acknowledge there has been internal disagreements, on several 
occasions about some directions of the project, about the release model, 
the lack of testing, the centralized infrastructure, however, there have 
been actual work going on under the hoods to solve things one step at a 
time, starting with a more decentralized infrastructure, which was 
discussed with the LEDE developers as well.


At this point, we do not have much to offer to the LEDE developers but 
to encourage them to publicly discuss on
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org the different items we should all be 
fixing together, and avoid spinning off so that all decisions can be 
taken with the community's involvement, and accountability and 
transparency can rule us as one community.


As a user, developer, contributor, or just community member, whatever 
choice you make, keep the choice that matters to you: the ability to 
utilize superior quality open source software to power whatever embedded 
device that matters to you!


We would like to stress that we do want to have an open discussion and 
resolve matters at hand. Our goal is to work with all parties who can 
and want to contribute to OpenWrt, including the LEDE team.


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Alexander Dahl]

Hei hei,

On 04.05.2016 20:57, Roman Yeryomin wrote:
> Well, like you said yourself, why they didn't start discussing the
> problems (and possible solutions) in open space then?

I can not speak for OpenWRT or LEDE developers, but let me give an
example on one topic I watched the last weeks, which several people
tried to discuss openly: download mirrors. From my point of view the
need for mirrors to be synced easily was communicated here on this list
and at the forum. On neither place I saw any commitment from someone
speaking for OpenWRT. There was just no feedback at all for weeks,
although a lot of people offered help and tried to explain what is
needed and why.

If this is the usual way for OpenWRT, then I can understand the
frustration which led to such a fork.

Oh and I second the thoughts to the chosen new name. It's hart to image
how to pronounce it correctly and you would probably end up spelling and
explaining it all the time. ;-)

Greets
Alex




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[David Lang]

It's not unusual for developers who disagree with project management issues to 
fork a project.


I am also interested in who is left in OpenWRT and what their viewpoint is.

Have the developers who are founding LEDE given up their commit privileges in 
OpenWRT? or are they going to be workting a bit in both for a while?


It will take time to see what effect this is really going to end up having. It 
could be a permanent fork, it could be a replacement for OpenWRT, it could be a 
dead end, and it could be something that ends up merging back in later.


It's clear that the issues are management, not technical.

David Lang

On Wed, 4 May 2016, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca wrote:


It is really strange that the decision to create a new project was so
opaque when it was motivated to be a more "transparent project".
They could've started to be more transparent already with the decision to
create a new project.

Maybe the answer for the need of an external reboot might be not in the
names that jumped into but on those left behind.
Maybe it was easier to create a new project than to boot out the problems.

My 2 cents,

Em qua, 4 de mai de 2016 às 14:50, Roman Yeryomin 
escreveu:


On 4 May 2016 at 19:25, Kathy Giori  wrote:

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich 

wrote:

Hi,

we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
.

The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
many of the same goals.


While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot apply
these same "principles" of openness and transparency to the OpenWrt
project. Makes no sense to me to branch the project. That simply
divides the resources in the community into fewer numbers working on
each fork.


Exactly, tearing down the project and community without any real
explanations (and plans to solve the stated issues) is just wrong.


Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.

kathy
___
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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 4 May 2016 at 21:35, Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca  wrote:
> It is really strange that the decision to create a new project was so opaque
> when it was motivated to be a more "transparent project".
> They could've started to be more transparent already with the decision to
> create a new project.
>
> Maybe the answer for the need of an external reboot might be not in the
> names that jumped into but on those left behind.
> Maybe it was easier to create a new project than to boot out the problems.

Well, like you said yourself, why they didn't start discussing the
problems (and possible solutions) in open space then?
Then the reasons would be more or less clear. But now it seems that
community will be confused a lot.
At least I'm completely confused.

> My 2 cents,
>
> Em qua, 4 de mai de 2016 às 14:50, Roman Yeryomin 
> escreveu:
>>
>> On 4 May 2016 at 19:25, Kathy Giori  wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich 
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> >> .
>> >>
>> >> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
>> >> many of the same goals.
>> >
>> > While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot apply
>> > these same "principles" of openness and transparency to the OpenWrt
>> > project. Makes no sense to me to branch the project. That simply
>> > divides the resources in the community into fewer numbers working on
>> > each fork.
>>
>> Exactly, tearing down the project and community without any real
>> explanations (and plans to solve the stated issues) is just wrong.
>>
>> > Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
>> > industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
>> > OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
>> > this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
>> > industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
>> > who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.
>> >
>> > kathy
>> > ___
>> > 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
>
> --
>
> Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
> luizl...@gmail.com
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca]

It is really strange that the decision to create a new project was so
opaque when it was motivated to be a more "transparent project".
They could've started to be more transparent already with the decision to
create a new project.

Maybe the answer for the need of an external reboot might be not in the
names that jumped into but on those left behind.
Maybe it was easier to create a new project than to boot out the problems.

My 2 cents,

Em qua, 4 de mai de 2016 às 14:50, Roman Yeryomin 
escreveu:

> On 4 May 2016 at 19:25, Kathy Giori  wrote:
> > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich 
> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> >> .
> >>
> >> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
> >> many of the same goals.
> >
> > While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot apply
> > these same "principles" of openness and transparency to the OpenWrt
> > project. Makes no sense to me to branch the project. That simply
> > divides the resources in the community into fewer numbers working on
> > each fork.
>
> Exactly, tearing down the project and community without any real
> explanations (and plans to solve the stated issues) is just wrong.
>
> > Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> > industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> > OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> > this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
> > industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
> > who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.
> >
> > kathy
> > ___
> > 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
>
-- 

Luiz Angelo Daros de Luca
luizl...@gmail.com
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 4 May 2016 at 19:25, Kathy Giori  wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> .
>>
>> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
>> many of the same goals.
>
> While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot apply
> these same "principles" of openness and transparency to the OpenWrt
> project. Makes no sense to me to branch the project. That simply
> divides the resources in the community into fewer numbers working on
> each fork.

Exactly, tearing down the project and community without any real
explanations (and plans to solve the stated issues) is just wrong.

> Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
> industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
> OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
> this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
> industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
> who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.
>
> kathy
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Michael Richardson]

Bruno Randolf  wrote:
> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> ...
>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> John Crispin,
>> Daniel Golle,
>> Felix Fietkau,
>> Hauke Mehrtens
>> John Crispin
>> Matthias Schiffer,
>> Steven Barth

> While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
> list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
> OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???

I read the rest of the thread before replying.
I understand the need for a reboot and rename.

I also don't know who is left, or is being pushed out, or... maybe they left
already and didn't leave the keys?  Given the FCC-inspired lockdowns, I
wonder if one has interest in GPLv3-like statements about keys.

I don't much like the name LEDE; it will be hard to explain to end users.
Reminds me too much of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_in_Energy_and_Environmental_Design
and http://www.leedsunited.com/


Maybe do an Apple on the case lEDE, or leDE (en francais!) or something.
asciidoc for the web site content is okay; maybe someone will contribute a
snazier style sheet (but not me; I'm pathetic at CSS too)



--
]   Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works| network architect  [
] m...@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/|   ruby on rails[



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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Kathy Giori]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> .
>
> The project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and shares
> many of the same goals.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, I do not see why you cannot apply
these same "principles" of openness and transparency to the OpenWrt
project. Makes no sense to me to branch the project. That simply
divides the resources in the community into fewer numbers working on
each fork.

Also wearing my hat within the prpl Foundation, which is funded by
industry sponsorships that in turn provides financial support for
OpenWrt, no one I have spoken to in prpl understands the reason for
this spin-off either. It'll cause more confusion and inefficiency in
industry. prpl will stick with OpenWrt, and I expect most companies
who follow and/or contribute to OpenWrt will stick with it too.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Karl Palsson]

Jo-Philipp Wich  wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community

On a purely logistical note, is there any purpose in sending
patches/pulls/bugs to _openwrt-devel_ any more? It sounds like
there's effectively no-one left to read them.

What about procd, fstools, libubox/libubus, (lib)uci, uhttpd,
ustream, uclient, jsonpath? Some of those had only recently
finally moved to git.openwrt.org after being held on nbd.name.
Where are those projects going to be maintained? openwrt-devel?
git.openwrt.org? Somewhere else?

Cheers,
Karl P

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Adrian Panella]

I'm a new comer to this community, and first experiencing with the use of 
OpenWrt both as firmware and developing it, so I don't feel much entitled to 
have a word here.
But I find it is a great product and want to contribute to the project, so I'll 
share my perspective as someone who would like to join the boat.
So far in my (very limited) experience porting OpenWrt to a new device I see 
some of the proposed changes very promising. I don't know if the best way is a 
rebranding or a v2, but in either case for me so far the two main aspects would 
be:
+ the possibility of doing pull requests, and if there is more active response 
to them (even if it is a rejection); much more like it seems to be in the 
feeds/packages area.
+ another aspect that would help a lot new comers like myself is better 
documentation. The current Wiki/Doc is incomplete and has a lot of mixture of 
information from old features which have been superseded or are outdated. Core 
services (like procd) are very briefly outlined. You really have to invest a 
lot of time to go thru the code base to understand the underlying picture.  For 
documentation I find a platform more like Wikipedia, where changes can be 
tracked and discussions can take place, a great option.

Thanks for the great work you've done so far!

Regards,

Adrián

-Original Message-
From: openwrt-devel [mailto:openwrt-devel-boun...@lists.openwrt.org] On Behalf 
Of Rick Pannen
Sent: miércoles, 04 de mayo de 2016 04:01 a.m.
To: Roman Yeryomin; Roman Yeryomin
Cc: Bruno Randolf; OpenWrt Development List; Bruno Randolf; OpenWrt Development 
List
Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

The only thing that seems to improve from my perspective is normal git pull 
requests instead of antiquated email patches. The name change and that 90's 
style website will only confuse the users.

> Am 04.05.2016 um 00:50 schrieb Roman Yeryomin <leroi.li...@gmail.com>:
> 
>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf <b...@einfach.org> wrote:
>>> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community ...
>>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>>> John Crispin,
>>> Daniel Golle,
>>> Felix Fietkau,
>>> Hauke Mehrtens
>>> John Crispin
>>> Matthias Schiffer,
>>> Steven Barth
>> 
>> While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this 
>> list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the 
>> OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
> 
> Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the 
> issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people, 
> rules and methods.
> Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix 
> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside 
> existing project?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Roman
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Carlos Ferreira]

>From times to times, a complete Refresh is needed to purge old habits.

Let's face it. The name OpenWRT reflects the initial idea, an Open Wireless
Router. I don't know about the main uses, but I have a router using OpenWRT
which doesn't even has a wireless interface.
I also have seen cases where OpenWRT is used as a Virtual Machine.

Is the project addressing your today's issues? I ask that question to the
users.

On 4 May 2016 at 10:00, Rick Pannen  wrote:

> The only thing that seems to improve from my perspective is normal git
> pull requests instead of antiquated email patches. The name change and that
> 90's style website will only confuse the users.
>
> > Am 04.05.2016 um 00:50 schrieb Roman Yeryomin :
> >
> >> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
> >>> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> >>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> >>> ...
> >>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
> >>> John Crispin,
> >>> Daniel Golle,
> >>> Felix Fietkau,
> >>> Hauke Mehrtens
> >>> John Crispin
> >>> Matthias Schiffer,
> >>> Steven Barth
> >>
> >> While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
> >> list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
> >> OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
> >
> > Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
> > issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
> > rules and methods.
> > Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
> > the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
> > existing project?
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Roman
> > ___
> > 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
>



-- 

Carlos Miguel Ferreira
Researcher at Telecommunications Institute
Aveiro - Portugal
Work E-mail - c...@av.it.pt
Skype & GTalk -> carlosmf...@gmail.com
LinkedIn -> http://www.linkedin.com/in/carlosmferreira
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Rick Pannen]

The only thing that seems to improve from my perspective is normal git pull 
requests instead of antiquated email patches. The name change and that 90's 
style website will only confuse the users.

> Am 04.05.2016 um 00:50 schrieb Roman Yeryomin :
> 
>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
>>> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>>> ...
>>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>>> John Crispin,
>>> Daniel Golle,
>>> Felix Fietkau,
>>> Hauke Mehrtens
>>> John Crispin
>>> Matthias Schiffer,
>>> Steven Barth
>> 
>> While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
>> list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
>> OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
> 
> Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
> issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
> rules and methods.
> Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
> existing project?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Roman
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 4 May 2016 at 10:31, Roman Yeryomin  wrote:
> On 4 May 2016 at 09:13, Reinoud Koornstra  wrote:
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Outback Dingo  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin 
>>> wrote:

 On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
 > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
 >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
 >> ...
 >> Jo-Philipp Wich,
 >> John Crispin,
 >> Daniel Golle,
 >> Felix Fietkau,
 >> Hauke Mehrtens
 >> John Crispin
 >> Matthias Schiffer,
 >> Steven Barth
 >
 > While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
 > list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
 > OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
>>>
>>>
>>> come on.. is this a joke? same names, same faces, if you sliced this list
>>> off from the current dev group, who is actually left anyway on that
>>> note, if its legit, ill jump onboard and throw my hat in the ring also due
>>> to my trust and respect for those that are listed.
>>
>> I am kind of surprised.
>> There are still daily checkins in the tree.
>> Still some people are adding support for boards.
>> Hence I must not understand the notion of inactiveness.
>> The value of openwrt is still invaluable.
>> If rebranding helps pumping additional life into it, why not...
>
> I'm not against rebranding but I don't see how it fixes the problem.
> IMO it only makes it worse.
>
>>>


 Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
 issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
 rules and methods.
 Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
 the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
 existing project?



John, others,
"The name LEDE stands for Linux Embedded Development Environment."
sounds like build system only.
I would vote for separating build system into separate project.
Actually, if you remember, I was proposing this several years ago. It
would make more sense and would better fit LEDE name. Though "Linux"
can be subtracted from there as it's capable of building also MCU
projects.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 4 May 2016 at 09:13, Reinoud Koornstra  wrote:
> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Outback Dingo  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
>>> > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>>> >> ...
>>> >> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>>> >> John Crispin,
>>> >> Daniel Golle,
>>> >> Felix Fietkau,
>>> >> Hauke Mehrtens
>>> >> John Crispin
>>> >> Matthias Schiffer,
>>> >> Steven Barth
>>> >
>>> > While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
>>> > list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
>>> > OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
>>
>>
>> come on.. is this a joke? same names, same faces, if you sliced this list
>> off from the current dev group, who is actually left anyway on that
>> note, if its legit, ill jump onboard and throw my hat in the ring also due
>> to my trust and respect for those that are listed.
>
> I am kind of surprised.
> There are still daily checkins in the tree.
> Still some people are adding support for boards.
> Hence I must not understand the notion of inactiveness.
> The value of openwrt is still invaluable.
> If rebranding helps pumping additional life into it, why not...

I'm not against rebranding but I don't see how it fixes the problem.
IMO it only makes it worse.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
>>> issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
>>> rules and methods.
>>> Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
>>> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
>>> existing project?
>>>
>>>
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Reinoud Koornstra]

On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Outback Dingo  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin 
> wrote:
>>
>> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
>> > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> >> ...
>> >> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> >> John Crispin,
>> >> Daniel Golle,
>> >> Felix Fietkau,
>> >> Hauke Mehrtens
>> >> John Crispin
>> >> Matthias Schiffer,
>> >> Steven Barth
>> >
>> > While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
>> > list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
>> > OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
>
>
> come on.. is this a joke? same names, same faces, if you sliced this list
> off from the current dev group, who is actually left anyway on that
> note, if its legit, ill jump onboard and throw my hat in the ring also due
> to my trust and respect for those that are listed.

I am kind of surprised.
There are still daily checkins in the tree.
Still some people are adding support for boards.
Hence I must not understand the notion of inactiveness.
The value of openwrt is still invaluable.
If rebranding helps pumping additional life into it, why not...

>
>>
>>
>> Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
>> issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
>> rules and methods.
>> Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
>> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
>> existing project?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Roman
>> ___
>> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Outback Dingo]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Roman Yeryomin 
wrote:

> On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
> > On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> >> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> >> ...
> >> Jo-Philipp Wich,
> >> John Crispin,
> >> Daniel Golle,
> >> Felix Fietkau,
> >> Hauke Mehrtens
> >> John Crispin
> >> Matthias Schiffer,
> >> Steven Barth
> >
> > While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
> > list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
> > OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
>

come on.. is this a joke? same names, same faces, if you sliced this list
off from the current dev group, who is actually left anyway on that
note, if its legit, ill jump onboard and throw my hat in the ring also due
to my trust and respect for those that are listed.


>
> Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
> issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
> rules and methods.
> Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
> the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
> existing project?
>
>
> Regards,
> Roman
> ___
> 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] Introducing the LEDE project

[Roman Yeryomin]

On 3 May 2016 at 23:19, Bruno Randolf  wrote:
> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> ...
>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> John Crispin,
>> Daniel Golle,
>> Felix Fietkau,
>> Hauke Mehrtens
>> John Crispin
>> Matthias Schiffer,
>> Steven Barth
>
> While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
> list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
> OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???

Indeed. Looks like silent rebranding. Without public discussion of the
issues (and possible ways to fix them) in mailing list Same people,
rules and methods.
Could you elaborate more and explain how exactly LEDE is going to fix
the listed problems? And why it's not possible to fix them inside
existing project?


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Piotr Dymacz]

Hello,

2016-05-03 22:19 GMT+02:00 Bruno Randolf :
> On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
>> ...
>> Jo-Philipp Wich,
>> John Crispin,
>> Daniel Golle,
>> Felix Fietkau,
>> Hauke Mehrtens
>> John Crispin
>> Matthias Schiffer,
>> Steven Barth
>
> While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
> list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
> OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???
> [...]

Same question here.
Plus, does it still make sense to send patches here?

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Introducing the LEDE project

[Bruno Randolf]

On 03/05/16 18:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> we'd like to introduce LEDE, a reboot of the OpenWrt community
> ...
> Jo-Philipp Wich,
> John Crispin,
> Daniel Golle, 
> Felix Fietkau,
> Hauke Mehrtens
> John Crispin
> Matthias Schiffer,
> Steven Barth

While a fresh start and a more open process is good move, given this
list of supporters it sounds a bit ridiculous... who is left in the
OpenWRT boat and why not do it as OpenWRT (V2 or whatever)???

Anyhow I am excited to see some important problems in the OpenWRT
community being addressed!

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