[LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

Thu May 11 16:32:40 PDT 2017

Taking part in this discussion feels a bit awkward - without question I have less at stake than you and most other involved devs - but since I did speak-up ...
-- 
Paul

> Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz <kaloz at openwrt.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> 
> On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote:
>> Although being someone that’s merely following the developments of this project, I want to comment on what’s going on in this thread.
>> Some of my remarks may strike as not very positive, so please do not take any of those personal.
>> s.y.
>> Paul
>> 
>>> Op 10 mei 2017, om 11:31 heeft Imre Kaloz <kaloz at openwrt.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>> On 2017-05-10 00:52, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>> [cut]
>> 
>>> *) SPI
>>>>> - TBD post remerge
>>>> I'd prefer to tackle this first.
>>> Before the merge non-OpenWrt people are outsiders from both SPI's and the world's PoV. After the merge everyone can vote on these topics.
>> This does not feel right. The desire to have the ownership of the domain being properly handled before bringing the project - which currently is LEDE - back under the openwrt domain name is very reasonable. The fork this have a cause.
>> If I’ve misunderstood Imre’s position, please tell.
> You did :) If you take a look at the original mail from John, that "TBD" is there for SPI, the handling of the domain is before that point. This part is about how to pick and elect the liaisons, as it has been explained before in John's reply to Rafal.
> 
> The SPI has a relationship with OpenWrt, not LEDE. When LEDE devs are OpenWrt devs, they "become visible" for SPI. It's matter of steps you have to do in order, nothing else.
Thank for the extra info.
So okay, but then agreement on the rules that governs the liason would probably still be required before.
Stating that OpenWrt has an exclusive position with SPI - certainly true for the name OpenWrt - ignores that the LEDE project itself now has so much to offer and momentum that it could very well consider self setting up a relation with SPI.

>>>>> - start pushing to the openwrt organisation
>>>> By force-overwriting the history of openwrt/openwrt ?
>>> No one said it won't cause a bit of pain, but would ease the transition on the long run.
>> Seems the solution to un-fork may cause more problems than it solves. And all that for just the name ?
> I don't think rebasing your changes is that much of a pain, and this only causes a hiccup for people who are using the OpenWrt git tree for real.
Probably true, but does concern pain of others ... 
Why wouldn’t the re-merged project have its living repository named LEDE ? Is that a problem ? 
(or is it wished for taht all commits on LEDE seem to be in openwrt ?)

>>>>> - update the landing page to have the same look & feel as the current
>>>>> openwrt landing page
>>>> Why?
>>> Well, we're not wikipedia so it doesn't hurt if the site has at least some CSS ;)
>> For all value that OWRT was worth, its website's looks weren’t among them.
> I didn't say it looks awesome - but in 2017 we shouldn't optimize for lynx I think. Actually creating a common look and feel between services (and SSO for them) would make things look way better IMHO.
>>>>> *) email accounts
>>>>> - currently there are around ~20 active openwrt.org mail accounts
>>>>> - turn all the webmaster@, hostmaster@, ... accounts into aliases that
>>>>> anyone with voting rights can be subscribed to
>>>>> - ask those people that are no longer active to voluntarily give up
>>>>> their accounts
>>>>> - mail addresses may under no conditions be used for any personal
>>>>> business, consultancy, applying for jobs, ... purposes
>>>> According to the rules there shall be no personal mail accounts at all.
>>>> There should be plenty of time until the actual remerge to fade them out
>>>> and to set up forwarding elsewhere.
>>> I hope you agree that a merge means both sides are adopting and need to find some common ground.
>> All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others ...
> I think I've lost you here. In my point of view common ground != everyone looses. This is a "non-zero-sum game”.
What I referred to is that LEDE explicitly decided not to issue e-mail addresses in order to avoid that such address would place some people in a special position, in order to avoid undue discrimination. Making exceptions could amount to some being more equal than others.

>>> Some of the rules has to change, and as we've discussed it with John, one might want to send upstream submissions to make OpenWrt show up there like other projects do. You might also want to open a private conversation between the upstream platform / driver maintainer where having a project email address could be useful. Personally I only use my owrt address for FOSS related stuff and as far as I know, most people do the same.
>>> 
>>> LEDE has a rule which says: "Committers being unreachable for three months in a row shall get their commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability to do majority votes among the remaining active committers." This rule is clearly problematic if you would like to extend voting rights to non-coders which I believe we want to do. Someone maintaining the wiki or the forums might never commit anything, but we do want to get their opinion heard. In the past we didn't make it easy for the community to interfere with decisions, I doubt we want to make the same mistake again.
>> Intentions matter. Nonetheless a rule that tries to prevent that non-cooperation can be used as a way to obstruct, should not be set aside by intentions; this rule may very well be a sleeping rule that, unhoped for, might just be needed when lesser intentions become a problem. While on the other hand in the interpretation of a rule, its intention is very relevant and helps to apply it to cases that may seem not to fit when interpreted in a (to) narrowly strict way.
>> 
> Intentions do matter until you've created the rules, after that the rules might not serve the original intentions. Anyways, I only wanted to point out that the current LEDE rules aren't perfect either. Don't get me wrong, the OpenWrt ones [1] [2] weren't perfect either, specially because the majority didn't care about them.
> 
> 
> Imre
> 
> [1] https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules
> [2] https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/CommitPolicy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lede-dev mailing list
> Lede-dev at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev