[LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree

[John Crispin]

On 19/05/2016 15:34, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> John Crispin <john at phrozen.org> writes:
>> On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>> John Crispin <john at phrozen.org> 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 commit access for those people ase well, but I don't
>>>>> know for sure.
>>>>
>>>> we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner
>>>> for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days.
>>>
>>> Any status update from the cabal?  Maybe it's time to remove the
>>>
>>>   "Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community
>>>    participation and public meetings. "
>>>
>>> goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a
>>> priority.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bjørn
>>>
>>
>> we had various meetings all were public, people have been more active
>> than before and all decision made so far have been active.
>>
>> was this just a drive by shooting or were you planning to achieve
>> anything useful by this mail ?
> 
> Maybe just drive-by..
> 
> 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

we means "the community" it is up to you to decide if you feel like part
of the community or not. you are most certainly invited to be part just
liek anyone doing constructive work.

> defintitely not an invitation to participate.  And the completely
> contentless "a solution" just emphasize that. Not exactly opening up for
> public discussion.

that is your interpretation and the result of that was that instead of
starting a discussion you demand results and concluded that as we do not
actively make you participate we must be wrong and proposed us to step
back from our goals which more than likely will not happen.

> And it has been more than a few days now... Or maybe I'm not patient
> enough.
> 

in those days many things happened, the highlights related to your mail are

* we agreed publicly via transparent voting in the last meeting that we
will invite active package maintainers to participate in meetings and voting

* we have done a lot of research into technical means to handle this,
e.g using liquid feedback for example

* we started to organize a meeting between the 2 projects to try and
resolve open issues and see how to best move along

...

> Yes, I understand perfectly well that resources are scarce, and that I
> have no right to point to these issues while not actually contributing
> myself. But all the problems you listed with the OpenWrt project were
> similar - lack of resources. Forking to solve that problem will not
> help. Which is why I try to give you a hard time now.  Don't know if I
> have enough "oomph" to actually do that.  If you don't see that LEDE is
> OpenWrt with less developers, then someone must point that out to you.
> 

personally i would disagree with you. i see it as a very different setup
with a lot of the bloat removed and far simpler structures. personally i
would say we have made great progress already. but that is up to the
individual to decide. we actually have more people actively working on
the tree today than we had 3 months ago. my workload has certainly
dropped to half on the merging and reviewing part.

you have all the right to start a discussion that is what is called
"active participation of the community". your mail however, in terms of
communication theory, can be consider as the "killer phrase" making it
very hard to use it as the basis for any constructive discussion.

to be honest i dont see your mail as giving us a hard time, i see it as
a rant which is based on an ill informed perception of what is going on.
(no bad feeling attached of course)

> 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 dont see it as unfair, i just wondered about the style. a simple
"could you elaborate what has happened so far" would have just been more
constructive and opened up the possibity to discuss what has been done
right so far and what can still be improved.

obviously there is much space for improvement the errors and bad the
decisions made by me and other over the course of almost a decade cannot
all be resolved in a couple of weeks. we are however working on
resolving issues. sorry that this is not as apparent to you as we would
like it to be.

you are more than welcome to take an active part in shaping the future,
as long as the style is a little more constructive than your mail from
earlier.

	John