Must...remember...don't feed the trolls (or their close cousins the
vocal unrealistic idealogues).
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 10:58:19AM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Oswald wrote:
> > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the
> > lede infrastructure and participation was technically open from the
> > start, but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it
> > m
The "niceness rules" sets up a base to avoid a toxic community and
don't let toxic people in.
In essence, they come in and they spread their way.
I'm not in the lede-adm list, nor am I a developer, but I'm watching
since before the fork.
I'm seeing progress and the will to be more open minded with
On 16-05-20 06:36 AM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>
> Sorry, I got on this tack because if his hostile approach to the LEDE
> project. If he had had a constructive approach I wouldn't likely have
> gotten off track this way. Still as Bjorn reminded me, we should be
> nice to each other, even
On 16-05-20 05:41 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Daniel Curran-Dickinson writes:
>
>> I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was),
>
> who? me? No, grumpy is just my default mode. I need to work on that.
> But I never rant without caring, so "hostile" is not correct.
>
> Anyway, I w
On 16-05-20 06:32 AM, Bruno Randolf wrote:
>> The issue I have is not with the notion of transparency, but that that
>> you imply that your particular view isn't just an opinion but based on
>> experience, but then you turn around and say it's irrelevant whether the
>> communities are open or not.
On 20/05/16 11:22, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-20 05:44 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:13:37AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>>> On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>
the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that
On 16-05-20 05:44 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:13:37AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>> On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>> the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my
>>> impressions and suggestions are not entirel
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 04:13:37AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >>
> > the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my
> > impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable.
> > it's up to the read
Daniel Curran-Dickinson writes:
> I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was),
who? me? No, grumpy is just my default mode. I need to work on that.
But I never rant without caring, so "hostile" is not correct.
Anyway, I want to apologize for breaking the "Be nice to eachother
Hi Oswald,
> well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the
> lede infrastructure and participation was technically open from the
> start, but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it
> makes the whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke.
we already learned that
On 16-05-20 04:08 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>
> the whole point of my side sentence was to give a hint that maybe my
> impressions and suggestions are not entirely unfounded or discardable.
> it's up to the reader to check my "creds" if they don't take my word.
> this didn't imply anything in
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:26:42AM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
> On 16-05-20 03:13 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
> >>> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of
> >>> experience in some *b
On 16-05-20 03:13 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>>> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of
>>> experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ...
>>
>> Since you obviously feel there are oth
On 16-05-20 03:13 AM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>>> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of
>>> experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ...
>>
>> Since you obviously feel there are oth
On 16-05-20 01:01 AM, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2016, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>
>> Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others,
>> impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email
>> that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 10:40:21PM -0400, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
> > anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of
> > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ...
>
> Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right,
> perhaps you'd li
On Thu, 19 May 2016, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
Do I think there are potentially problems, like my, and others,
impressions, that there is a fair amount of back channel (private) email
that *isn't* part of the public discussion that I thing is contrary to
the stated goal of transparency, if
> anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of
> experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ...
Since you obviously feel there are other communities doing this right,
perhaps you'd like to share the *names* of these examples so that LEDE
can look at what they're doi
On 16-05-19 09:31 PM, Daniel Curran-Dickinson wrote:
>
> Does that mean I think LEDE is perferct? Definitely not, but I've
> already seen huge improvements compared to what was happening in
> openwrt, and a great deal more openness than was the case in openwrt.
>
> Do I think there are potenti
On 16-05-19 06:09 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> Bjørn wrote:
>>> Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some
>>> developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are
>>> not enough. It's the result
Den 2016-05-20 kl. 00:09, skrev Oswald Buddenhagen:
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> Bjørn wrote:
>>> Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some
>>> developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are
>>> not enough. It's the res
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 04:40:34PM +0200, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
> Bjørn wrote:
> > Yes, this is extremely unfair. Just like the I'm sure some
> > developers saw the original LEDE announcement. Good intentions are
> > not enough. It's the result that matters.
>
> I certainly agree but we should
On Thu, 19 May 2016, John Crispin wrote:
On 19/05/2016 15:34, Bjørn Mork wrote:
John Crispin writes:
On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote:
John Crispin writes:
On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
I don't think that will be possible because it's different people
working on each tree.
Dear Bjørn,
> But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are
> working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who
> "we" are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is
> defintitely not an invitation to participate. And the completely
> cont
On 19/05/2016 15:34, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Crispin writes:
>> On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>> John Crispin writes:
On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
> I don't think that will be possible because it's different people
> working on each tree. I know the OpenWR
John Crispin writes:
> On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> John Crispin writes:
>>> On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
>>>
I don't think that will be possible because it's different people
working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt
e-mail addresse
On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Crispin writes:
>> On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that will be possible because it's different people
>>> working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt
>>> e-mail addresses for the people working on
John Crispin writes:
> On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
>
>> I don't think that will be possible because it's different people
>> working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt
>> e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that
>> they have blocked c
On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2016, Hans Dedecker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> several people expressed the intention to continue pushing patches to
>>> both trees. In any case we'll keep picking stuff fr
On Mon, 9 May 2016, Hans Dedecker wrote:
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
Hi Michael,
several people expressed the intention to continue pushing patches to
both trees. In any case we'll keep picking stuff from both lists for
LEDE for some time to come.
Regards,
Jo-Phil
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> several people expressed the intention to continue pushing patches to
> both trees. In any case we'll keep picking stuff from both lists for
> LEDE for some time to come.
>
> Regards,
> Jo-Philipp
>
> __
32 matches
Mail list logo
