Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
I do not see anyone from the committers complaining about the revert. If folks felt that a vote was neccesseary, then someone would have started one. I have a feeling that folks are happy with the old status quo and no vote is required. John On 18.04.24 16:13, Paul D wrote: On 2024-04-16 16:41, Etienne Champetier wrote: Le mar. 16 avr. 2024 à 10:34, Paul D a écrit : On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote: As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? Etienne Is this happening? Sorry I missed your last ping This was an open question, I don't know who to contact at SFC Looking at old emails, John, Jo and Hauke are our liaison with SFC So, John, Jo and Hauke, who is the current liaison to SFC? what does the SFC think? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
On 2024-04-16 16:41, Etienne Champetier wrote: > Le mar. 16 avr. 2024 à 10:34, Paul D a écrit : >> >> On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote: >>> >>> As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? >>> >>> Etienne >>> >> >> Is this happening? > > Sorry I missed your last ping > This was an open question, I don't know who to contact at SFC > > Looking at old emails, John, Jo and Hauke are our liaison with SFC So, John, Jo and Hauke, who is the current liaison to SFC? what does the SFC think? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
Le mar. 16 avr. 2024 à 10:34, Paul D a écrit : > > On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote: > > > > As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? > > > > Etienne > > > > Is this happening? Sorry I missed your last ping This was an open question, I don't know who to contact at SFC Looking at old emails, John, Jo and Hauke are our liaison with SFC ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote: > > As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? > > Etienne > Is this happening? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
> My 2 cent on the problem of permitting nick is that if we accept that, > some funny guy might use nickname like "ExtraHardCockSucker" > and we wouldn't have anything to say about it and have to accept > it if the contribution is correct. An immature person who uses such a nickname - is quite unlikely to contribute something meaningful, so don't need to worry of bad nicknames "tainting" the commit history. On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 1:10 AM Paul D wrote: > > On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote: > > > > > > (On my phone, Gmail mobile only sends html emails, sorry for that) > > > > As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? > > > > Etienne > > > > When can we know the result of such an opinion? > > > > ___ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote: > > > (On my phone, Gmail mobile only sends html emails, sorry for that) > > As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? > > Etienne > When can we know the result of such an opinion? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
(On my phone, Gmail mobile only sends html emails, sorry for that) As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ? Since you deem it a legal issue, yes, get their opinion. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
> On 27/03/2024 10:53, Paul D wrote: > >> lets make a vote > > > > > > So... what's necessary for a vote to start? > > > > Why this insistence on a vote while the discussion is still going on ? > Why this interest in cut other people's opinion while there is stuff to > be discussed and may change others idea. > It is not because a certain direction seems to be the way to go that a > discussion should be abruptly stopped and not let everything that has to > be discussed happen. > > (I fixed the toppost) What is there to discuss? We had this problem from what 4 month now? And there wasn't a single progress on this. Also IMHO there isn't anything to discuss... The thing is simple. Do we accept nickname in SoB or we require Real Name (or something that resemble it?) Also lets not be confused, my intention of doing the vote is to finally take a decision on this and not to cut any kind of discussion or opinion. Indeed I'm just saying, lets discuss on what to vote and just do it instead of continuing this "status-quo". ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
Why this insistence on a vote while the discussion is still going on ? Why this interest in cut other people's opinion while there is stuff to be discussed and may change others idea. It is not because a certain direction seems to be the way to go that a discussion should be abruptly stopped and not let everything that has to be discussed happen. On 27/03/2024 10:53, Paul D wrote: lets make a vote So... what's necessary for a vote to start? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
lets make a vote So... what's necessary for a vote to start? ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
Hi, [resent to list] a) It's a policy change and not a code change. Policy changes require a vote Then take a(nother) vote. https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-January/042063.html b) Just because the kernel changed their interpretation of DCO requirements doesn't mean this automatically applies to OpenWrt contribution policy. https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches Good point, as far as I remember, the page was meant to refer to the version of the linked document at the time of writing, not whatever version happens to be the latest over at kernel.org. This should probably get corrected to link to a version before that change. Do not conflate vague with abstract. The thing we care about here is an email address. Can anyone know it? Yes. Can everyone know it? Yes. Can two people have an identical email address? No. ( This is distinct from two people *using* one email address ). This interpretation does not reflect my view at least. I personally consider the email address to be a temporary artifact. Longevity or a given mail address is not always given (throw-away accounts, mails at selfhosted domains eventually disappearing, mails bearing no relation to the name of a person). Apart from that, I want proper looking, capitalized names (which also may be aliases resembling the syntax of legal birth names) in the git metadata. No nicknames, no repetition of mail addresses as name, no urls or handles tied to specific platforms. Lavabit shut down over the FBIs pursuit of a single email address (namely Snowden). If an email address is good enough for the FBI, it's good enough for DCO. " A real name does not require a legal name, nor a birth name, nor any name that appears on an official ID (e.g. a passport). " Exactly, but in my view there is a difference between calling oneself "John R. Doe" or "mangawarriorz99". I prefer the former and would vote against the latter. I see no place for "childish" or unprofessionally looking handles in the project. If somebody contributes with his GitHub handle, does that already count as known? When they're backed by en email address, yes. Not in my view. Regards, Jo ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
Christian and I have read on IRC people that got offended by my profile pic People will take offence at *anything*. Thus, 'take' and not 'give'. It's a *them* problem, not a *you* problem. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
> > > My 2 cent on the problem of permitting nick is that if we accept that, > > some funny guy might use nickname like "ExtraHardCockSucker" > > and we wouldn't have anything to say about it and have to accept > > it if the contribution is correct. > > > > Using Real name prevents that (on 99% of the case) > > Examples of the case are (quoting an italian name) > > "Antonio Bocchino" where bocchino means in italian blowjob... > > It's a funny surname but still less worse than "UltraBoobsLover" kind. > > > > Other project even use an entire google form to make user sign DCO > > and insert all kind of info. > > > > Even though humour is good, nobody is advocating this, nor have I seen > it in the wild. Allowing nicks does not mean that all have to be > allowed. Exercise judgement and common sense. > > My examples were extreme but another nickname of mine is Christo, from Christian and I have read on IRC people that got offended by my profile pic and this nickname... But again mine were just some reason of why I still think real name is the correct way. Honestly I'm still confused what was the big idea on the kernel to permits nickname... Some month ago I had like 6 reviewers that were angry with me using Ansuel Smith instead of my real name (and me having to change the SoB losing at least 3 years of kernel contributions) But again lets make a vote and put and end to this. It's causing more confusion with some commits being accepted and then someone yelling on IRC. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
My 2 cent on the problem of permitting nick is that if we accept that, some funny guy might use nickname like "ExtraHardCockSucker" and we wouldn't have anything to say about it and have to accept it if the contribution is correct. Using Real name prevents that (on 99% of the case) Examples of the case are (quoting an italian name) "Antonio Bocchino" where bocchino means in italian blowjob... It's a funny surname but still less worse than "UltraBoobsLover" kind. Other project even use an entire google form to make user sign DCO and insert all kind of info. Even though humour is good, nobody is advocating this, nor have I seen it in the wild. Allowing nicks does not mean that all have to be allowed. Exercise judgement and common sense. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
Il giorno mer 27 mar 2024 alle ore 13:33 Paul D ha scritto: > > > a) It's a policy change and not a code change. > > Policy changes require a vote > > Then take a(nother) vote. > Honestly due to the conflicts, lets just take a vote and be done with it. Members seem to participate more so it should not be a problem. My 2 cent on the problem of permitting nick is that if we accept that, some funny guy might use nickname like "ExtraHardCockSucker" and we wouldn't have anything to say about it and have to accept it if the contribution is correct. Using Real name prevents that (on 99% of the case) Examples of the case are (quoting an italian name) "Antonio Bocchino" where bocchino means in italian blowjob... It's a funny surname but still less worse than "UltraBoobsLover" kind. Other project even use an entire google form to make user sign DCO and insert all kind of info. > https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-January/042063.html > > > > b) Just because the kernel changed their interpretation of DCO > > requirements doesn't mean this automatically applies to OpenWrt > > contribution policy. > > https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches > > > > c) It's completely unclear what the new intended requirements are. > > For whom? Sorry, I do not understand what you're getting at here. > > > The Kernel's "clarification" regarding this topic is *very* vague in my > > opinion. What does "known identity" even mean? Known to whom, and to > > what degree? > > Do not conflate vague with abstract. The thing we care about here is an > email address. Can anyone know it? Yes. Can everyone know it? Yes. Can > two people have an identical email address? No. ( This is distinct from > two people *using* one email address ). > > Lavabit shut down over the FBIs pursuit of a single email address > (namely Snowden). If an email address is good enough for the FBI, it's > good enough for DCO. > > " > A real name does not require a legal name, nor a birth name, nor any > name that appears on an official ID (e.g. a passport). > " > > > > If somebody contributes with his GitHub handle, does that already count > > as known? > > When they're backed by en email address, yes. > ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
a) It's a policy change and not a code change. Policy changes require a vote Then take a(nother) vote. https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-January/042063.html b) Just because the kernel changed their interpretation of DCO requirements doesn't mean this automatically applies to OpenWrt contribution policy. https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches c) It's completely unclear what the new intended requirements are. For whom? Sorry, I do not understand what you're getting at here. The Kernel's "clarification" regarding this topic is *very* vague in my opinion. What does "known identity" even mean? Known to whom, and to what degree? Do not conflate vague with abstract. The thing we care about here is an email address. Can anyone know it? Yes. Can everyone know it? Yes. Can two people have an identical email address? No. ( This is distinct from two people *using* one email address ). Lavabit shut down over the FBIs pursuit of a single email address (namely Snowden). If an email address is good enough for the FBI, it's good enough for DCO. " A real name does not require a legal name, nor a birth name, nor any name that appears on an official ID (e.g. a passport). " If somebody contributes with his GitHub handle, does that already count as known? When they're backed by en email address, yes. ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
On 26.03.24 14:39, Paul D wrote: We have quorum/consensus on this issue. Is it too much to ask that everyone now follow it, or at least have this token 'vote'? Where did you see the quorum/consensus? I looked at the links and couldn't find it. Triggered by the yggdrasil additions of recent. https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23072 Paul S amended the policy (in packages[1] and openwrt[2] repos) with an open discussion in PRs for Felix to then change direction via: https://github.com/openwrt/actions-shared-workflows/commit/12d9551f2d07ec34ac813da8612c8014fb393af6 with comment: "should require a public discussion/vote" I reverted the change because: a) It's a policy change and not a code change. Policy changes require a vote. b) Just because the kernel changed their interpretation of DCO requirements doesn't mean this automatically applies to OpenWrt contribution policy. c) It's completely unclear what the new intended requirements are. So far it has been our policy that contributions need to be signed off with the real name of the submitter. If we want to change this in order to allow contributions without a real name attached, we need to clarify what's acceptable and what isn't. The Kernel's "clarification" regarding this topic is *very* vague in my opinion. What does "known identity" even mean? Known to whom, and to what degree? If somebody contributes with his GitHub handle, does that already count as known? - Felix ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
John Crispin [2024-03-26 21:10:03]:
Hi,
tl;dr check following kernel commit d4563201f33a ("Documentation: simplify and
clarify DCO contribution example language"), the diff:
-using your real name (sorry, no pseudonyms or anonymous contributions.)
+using a known identity (sorry, no anonymous contributions.)
> without a real name DCO is not assignable
There is official clarification[1] from Linux Foundation of the intended
meaning, to make it clear that real names are NOT required, only ability to
identify the person in the community:
The DCO requires the use of a real name that can be used to identify someone
in case there is an issue about a contribution they made. A real name does not
require a legal name, nor a birth name, nor any name that appears on an
official ID (e.g. a passport).
Your real name is the name you convey to people in the community for them to
use to identify you as you. The key concern is that your identification is
sufficient enough to contact you if an issue were to arise in the future about
your contribution. Your real name should not be an anonymous id or false name
that misrepresents who you are.
1. https://github.com/cncf/foundation/issues/383#issuecomment-1178254458
Cheers,
Petr
___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'
Hi, the SoB is a DCO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developer_Certificate_of_Origin without a real name DCO is not assignable John On 26.03.24 14:39, Paul D wrote: We have quorum/consensus on this issue. Is it too much to ask that everyone now follow it, or at least have this token 'vote'? Triggered by the yggdrasil additions of recent. https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23072 Paul S amended the policy (in packages[1] and openwrt[2] repos) with an open discussion in PRs for Felix to then change direction via: https://github.com/openwrt/actions-shared-workflows/commit/12d9551f2d07ec34ac813da8612c8014fb393af6 with comment: "should require a public discussion/vote" [1] https://github.com/openwrt/packages/pull/23084 [2] https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/14380 ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel ___ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
