[LEDE-DEV] A Wiki for LEDE Documentation

[Alberto Bursi]

On 09/15/2016 07:20 AM, John Crispin wrote:
>
> On 15/09/2016 01:11, Alberto Bursi wrote:
>>
>> On 09/14/2016 12:27 AM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
>>> Hi Alberto,
>>>
>>> don't hold back yourself waiting for a response from "the LEDE devs" -
>>> those who care about a wiki will likely endorse whatever good solution
>>> is proposed and the rest either has no opinion or time to participate in
>>> the decision making processes
>> Thanks for the heads up and confirmation. I was thinking along these
>> lines too but I needed a more "official" statement to be sure it was ok
>> for you. :)
>>
>> Just a quick reminder, you are the leaders of the LEDE project now, you
>> cannot just ignore posts and say "it's not my thing" like when you were
>> mostly developers.
>> Someone from the core team (i.e. the ones with "voting power" according
>> to your rules) has to at least come out with an "ack but you must do
>> this yourself" or a "nack we don't like this" for proposals or important
>> matters.
>> Otherwise most people will default to "wait for leaders decision" as you
>> saw in mails above, and that is not good for anyone.
>>
>> Now that you made it clear that we can arrange it ourselves we will (at
>> least try to, anyway).
>>
> i tend to disagree to your rather linear concepts of leaders and
> subordinates. this strict hierarchy was what essentially broke the owrt
> team up. if you need a strong leader to tell you what you can(not) do,
> then you are in the wrong place buddy.

Lol no. I'm actually saying that people tend to look at you like that 
already and that your actions should keep that in mind.

Try to look from the eyes of an external contributor.
Does this person have commit access in LEDE? no.
Does he have any access to your servers? no.
Does he have any "political voting power" as stated in your rules where 
people with commit access have a vote about decisions important to LEDE 
and others don't? no.
This is an obvious situation where you have power and the external 
contributor does not. Not saying it's wrong, but facts are facts.

Now this guy says something about a project or something, and he does 
not get any answer because someone here does not want to be a "strong 
leader that tells people what they can or cannot do".

What is the actual message this guy gets? That none cares or that the 
interest in his project is low, so there is a big risk he is going to 
waste his time contributing here.

Sorry, but this has happened so many times (like for example with 
OpenWRT) where people even contributed stuff that was never merged.
So yes, some may use the "leader didn't answer" as an excuse, but for 
most people the lack of leader input is a valid concern, and something 
you cannot just dismiss like that.

Note that I'm not talking about the wiki. That was not a major issue as 
being a separate thing it can be set up unofficially, or whatever.
I am just arguing about principles here, as I'm spotting a possibly bad 
pattern where the same bad practices of OpenWRT can bite again.

-Albert