[LEDE-DEV] openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

[Florian Fainelli]

On 05/12/2017 03:51 PM, Val Kulkov wrote:
> On 12 May 2017 at 18:37, David Lang <david at lang.hm> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Val Kulkov wrote:
>>
>>> The remaining issue IMO, if you are referring to the decision about the
>>> name of the merged project, is whether the core team will give the wider
>>> community an opportunity to be heard, and whether they would listen.
>>
>>
>> how do you define the 'wider community'? how do you determin who would be
>> allowed to vote? how would you prevent voter fraud from people who have very
>> strong opinions?
> 
> David, these are excuses for not asking opinions of the wider
> community. Where there is a will, there is a way.
> 
> LEDE's stated goal #3 is: Establish transparent decision processes
> with broad community participation and public meetings.
> 
> It is up to the LEDE project to define what is "broad community
> participation" and what is "public meetings". Perhaps someone from the
> core development team can explain what these terms mean in the stated
> goal #3?

Here is my own opinion (as having stake in seeing both project re-unite
as a dev): keeping everyone informed about the terms of re-merge and
therefore sending this proposal is not just the least we can do, it is
absolutely necessary.

Having the wider community (which I would define as anybody able to read
this email and remotely using or having interest in either of the two
projects) be consulted for any or part of the decisions included in that
re-merge proposal: not at the moment.

And here is why: I do not think we (devs, community, etc.) are in a good
shape right now to allow a wider audience to participate in decisions
that, granted, will impact them, but right now impact the devs
themselves with a much bigger intensity.

You may not agree with that, and I totally acknowledge this is not
democratic and may be perceived as a violation of goal #3, but if we
strictly stick to the definition of that goal, well first it's a goal,
so it may not be achievable (matter of perspective and will obviously),
but it emphasizes on transparency (achieved), communication (achieved)
and coordination (debatable) with the wider community.

Thank you
-- 
Florian