Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[bkil]

Hello,

Sorry for my late input.

I'd been considering starting a funded, but non-profit fork with close
upstream collaboration just for the above reasons and for reasons even
beyond that. I'm delighted that others came to a similar conclusion.

Start seems probable (early?) next year. I welcome any input relating
to this topic.

Regards,
bkil

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:10 PM, Bastian Bittorf  wrote:
> * Daniel Golle  [13.10.2015 16:53]:
>> If you want an industry-driven fork, go ahead. But don't force that
>> model upon an existing community without understanding how major parts
>> of that said community is operating.
>
> What I see since a long time, is that there is simply not
> enough manpower for reviewing patches and "simple" maintainance
> work (trac, buildbots) and this more and more leads to an unhappy
> community and overloaded devs.
>
> commercial pressure is'nt good, i agree - but maybe there is
> a way to have at least 1 fulltime or 2 parttime devs.
>
> bye, bastian
> ___
> 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] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Sorin Burjan]

Hello Kaloz,

is there any initiative to create a non-profit organization ?

Regards,
Sorin B.

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Imre Kaloz  wrote:

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:33:35 +0200, Bastian Bittorf
>  wrote:
>
> 
>
> It should be easy possible to get funding from all the companies which
>> work with OpenWrt. Is this in option?
>>
>
> Not until we have a nonprofit organization as companies can't have tax
> deduction in exchange.. This is pretty much the main issue people from said
> companies brought up at the summit as well.
>
>
> Imre
>
> ___
> 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] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Imre Kaloz]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:33:35 +0200, Bastian Bittorf
 wrote:




It should be easy possible to get funding from all the companies which
work with OpenWrt. Is this in option?


Not until we have a nonprofit organization as companies can't have tax  
deduction in exchange.. This is pretty much the main issue people from  
said companies brought up at the summit as well.



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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Imre Kaloz]

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:46:00 +0200, Sorin Burjan   
wrote:



Hello Kaloz,

is there any initiative to create a non-profit organization ?


We're looking into this as well other options ;)


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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[edgar . soldin]

On 13.10.2015 12:44, Imre Kaloz wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:33:35 +0200, Bastian Bittorf
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> It should be easy possible to get funding from all the companies which
>> work with OpenWrt. Is this in option?
> 
> Not until we have a nonprofit organization as companies can't have tax 
> deduction in exchange.. This is pretty much the main issue people from said 
> companies brought up at the summit as well.
> 
> 

how about said companies simply employ(part time even)/pay core devs for 
working on openwrt? 

if they really want to give back tax deductability shouldn't be an issue. there 
are costs of business that are not deductible. why should openwrt people be 
forced into forming/maintaining organizational infrastructure, when they could 
spend that time enhancing openwrt instead.

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Nemesis]

As far as I remember, there's no initiative going on, but the issue was
brought up at the summit by different speakers.

There was also a quick poll:

1. Kathy Giori asked the attendees to raise their hand if they backed
the idea of an OpenWRT foundation
I would say half of the presents raised their hands (I did not because
I'm not involved so much in OpenWRT and I don't feel entitled to take sides)

2. Kathy asked the attendees to raise their hand if they opposed the
idea of an OpenWRT foundation
I think there were almost no raised hands or not at all

Federico


On 10/13/2015 12:46 PM, Sorin Burjan wrote:
> Hello Kaloz,
>
> is there any initiative to create a non-profit organization ?
>
> Regards,
> Sorin B.
>
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Imre Kaloz  > wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:33:35 +0200, Bastian Bittorf
> > wrote:
>
> 
>
> It should be easy possible to get funding from all the
> companies which
> work with OpenWrt. Is this in option?
>
>
> Not until we have a nonprofit organization as companies can't have
> tax deduction in exchange.. This is pretty much the main issue
> people from said companies brought up at the summit as well.
>
>
> Imre
>
> ___
> 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] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Bastian Bittorf]

* Nemesis  [12.10.2015 12:17]:
> The Django Framework moved from SVN to github in 2012but they kept their
> own bug tracker (which they redesigned with some funding to make it more
> usable): https://code.djangoproject.com/
> 
> I think they're a good example of an open source community which went
> through the process of improving the way people can join the community
> and contribute, they also raise funds to pay for hard tasks like
> redesigning the website, organizing sprints, periodically hire a
> "fellow" which reviews (accepts/closes and occasionally fixes) tickets
> and so on.
> Since they started doing this django has improved massively.

I think that is a good point. The active OpenWrt-Team seems
to consist of 3-4 people. Has somebody of them considered to work
fulltime for the project? This way the always growing Patchwork (~100
open patches) and Ticketsystem (>3000 open Tickets) would benefit.

It should be easy possible to get funding from all the companies which
work with OpenWrt. Is this in option?

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Daniel Golle]

Hi!

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:22:14PM +0200, Emmanuel Deloget wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Nemesis  wrote:
> > As far as I remember, there's no initiative going on, but the issue was 
> > brought up at the summit by different speakers.
> >
> > There was also a quick poll:
> >
> > 1. Kathy Giori asked the attendees to raise their hand if they backed the 
> > idea of an OpenWRT foundation
> > I would say half of the presents raised their hands (I did not because I'm 
> > not involved so much in OpenWRT and I don't feel entitled to take sides)
> >
> > 2. Kathy asked the attendees to raise their hand if they opposed the idea 
> > of an OpenWRT foundation
> > I think there were almost no raised hands or not at all

I believe it's important to note that OpenWrt got quite a lot of users
and contributers who aren't commercially motivated and probably didn't
feel the need to come to an industry-funded summit in first place.
Many here got their roots in the wifi-mesh communities, ie. they are
activists and afaik most of OpenWrt was created as a leasure/hobby
activity. (correct me if that's terribly wrong)
Sure, now that even chip vendors use OpenWrt as the base of their SDKs
and major industry players provide OpenWrt-based BSPs the situation
has certainly changed.
However, I believe the extraordinarily high quality of the code was and
is only possible due to the lack of commercial pressure and because
things were done when people liked to do them and took as long as they
would take (rather than doing stuff you don't feel like doing in that
moment because of some dead-line or commercially motivated commitment)
Quality[1] itself can be quite a good motivator for many of us, and is
imho impossible to achieve if driven by anything but passion and love
for the matter and activity itself (that doesn't mean that it's bad
to be paid for good work, there's nothing wrong with that).
Being a software engineer myself, I'm aware that this is not what $corp
managers believe, and surely, it's still hard work to build something
and most people do need to get paid for at least some of their work in
order to have a good live and not needing to starve.

But yet, it's like comparing arts with advertisement or love with
prostitution. Given these extreme examples, almost everyone can
grasp the difference in quality I'm talking about which also applies
here.

If you want an industry-driven fork, go ahead. But don't force that
model upon an existing community without understanding how major parts
of that said community is operating.
Sure, we can all use funding :)
But my mode-of-operation doesn't have a price-tag on it.
I hope that applies also to the decission-making of most long-term
contributers.


> 
> Wouldn't it be easier if the project is adopted by an umbrella
> organization? There should be one that could be interested in managing
> the pitfalls and dirty bits of the organization, allowing the
> developers to spend their time on the project itself - and not on the
> maintenance of a foundation.

However, I'm happy we are arriving at the core of that matter. It's
(as usual among the technical croud) hidden behind a technical debate,
in this case git vs. subversion.
However, what it is really about is the mode of decission-making and
commercial usability and reliability.

It's ok to use our music, but don't tell anyone how to play.
And sure, feel free to find the magic hat :)


Cheers


Daniel


 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig's_metaphysics_of_Quality
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Emmanuel Deloget]

Hello,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Nemesis  wrote:
>
> As far as I remember, there's no initiative going on, but the issue was 
> brought up at the summit by different speakers.
>
> There was also a quick poll:
>
> 1. Kathy Giori asked the attendees to raise their hand if they backed the 
> idea of an OpenWRT foundation
> I would say half of the presents raised their hands (I did not because I'm 
> not involved so much in OpenWRT and I don't feel entitled to take sides)
>
> 2. Kathy asked the attendees to raise their hand if they opposed the idea of 
> an OpenWRT foundation
> I think there were almost no raised hands or not at all

Wouldn't it be easier if the project is adopted by an umbrella
organization? There should be one that could be interested in managing
the pitfalls and dirty bits of the organization, allowing the
developers to spend their time on the project itself - and not on the
maintenance of a foundation.

> Federico
>

BR,

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

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] SVN to GIT transition / paid patch-checking

[Bastian Bittorf]

* Daniel Golle  [13.10.2015 16:53]:
> If you want an industry-driven fork, go ahead. But don't force that
> model upon an existing community without understanding how major parts
> of that said community is operating.

What I see since a long time, is that there is simply not
enough manpower for reviewing patches and "simple" maintainance
work (trac, buildbots) and this more and more leads to an unhappy
community and overloaded devs.

commercial pressure is'nt good, i agree - but maybe there is
a way to have at least 1 fulltime or 2 parttime devs.

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