[LEDE-DEV] OpenWRT tree vs LEDE tree

[Daniel Curran-Dickinson]

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 is contrary to
>> the stated goal of transparency, if if the only reason is they think
>> it's just trivial or trying to hash things out?  Then yes, I think there
>> is *too much* back channel mail, and that if they're *serious* about
>> transparency they will fix that, even if it's hard to adopt that working
>> style.
>>
>> You know I personally am not afraid to go on the record with my thoughts
>> and opinions, and I think that kind of approach is what it takes to do
>> transparency right, if it can be uncomfortable and keeps a history of
>> thing one might wish were not on the record.
>>
>>>
>>> regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any kind
>>> of serious discussion should be the open mailing list.
>>> - as others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the
>>>   whole concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about
>>>   non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch it.
>>> - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and needs
>>>   to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a problem.
>>>   probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the first place.
>>
>> Exactly.  It seems like there is still a lot of back channel talk that
>> is not public.
> 
> Guys, give them a little time to transition here.
> 
> Not all conversations should be public.
> 
> does the concept of "don't play with matches in a powder magazine" make
> sense?
> 
> negotiations and discussions of blame/hurt feelings don't work well if
> there is a large crowd of hecklers around. They (both LEDE and OpenWRT
> folks) need to be able to meet and discuss history and the effects that
> it will have going forward without people second guessing every move and
> parsing every word for hidden meanings.
> 
> The LEDE folks flubbed the announcemnt, but that was only a couple weeks
> ago. These are people working on this part-time, they have families and
> jobs to deal with. It is going to take them time to figure out what and
> how to change and communicate the details between them.
> 
> Would you really like it if they started announcing changes, only to
> have other LEDE folks contradict them?
> 
> Focus on Code and Tools, you know, technical stuff. Let them have a
> little breathing room to figure out the governence stuff.
> 
> Watch what's changing, make suggestions, sure. But tone down the demands
> and criticism until they actually show that they aren't willing to
> change. So far they've seemed very willing to tweak things in response
> to suggestions.
> 

I wasn't meaning it to be hostile (the other guy I think was), just as
an area for improvement.

Certainly I agree there *are* things that shouldn't be on public
channels, because it does more harm than good, I'm just saying that it
looks like there is still a lot of stuff going in 'in the background'
that *isnt' transparent* AND transparency is *stated goal*.

Does that mean I think it's deliberate hiding - hell no, I just don't
think they've fully got the hang of transparency yet.

Regards,

Daniel