Revising OpenWrt Rules - Minimal-invasive approach

Thu Dec 3 09:54:27 EST 2020

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openwrt-adm [mailto:openwrt-adm-bounces at lists.openwrt.org] On
> Behalf Of Rich Brown
> Sent: Dienstag, 1. Dezember 2020 19:12
> To: Adrian Schmutzler <mail at adrianschmutzler.de>
> Cc: openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> Subject: Re: Revising OpenWrt Rules - Minimal-invasive approach
> 
> Thank you again for all the well-reasoned comments. I accept Adrian's push
> toward a minimal set of changes. I have taken the liberty of putting an
> updated set of rules in a playground page on the wiki (link below)
> 
> I have incorporated Adrian's suggestions to the current rules. The biggest
> change is to address my concern that the current rules don't specify HOW a
> proposal gets a formal vote. Consequently, I added a rule that states:

Some quick comments after a first read:

> 1. [...] who have demonstrated a strong commitment to OpenWrt, through high quality contributions of code, documentation, organization and/or leadership.

The "e.g." I put before the list of "commitments" was intended, because I'd like to keep the decision about what's commitment for an individual candidate to the voters (and thus the list provides examples and is not necessarily complete).

> 3. [...] must be moved and seconded on the OpenWrt-Adm list.

I would not hard-code a specific mailing list in the rules.

> [...] After any discussion has settled,

And I also would not include the means of previous discussion to a vote in the rules at all.

> 4. Votes for decision maker membership, overall development directions,
> and other project matters are decided by simple majority votes of active
> decision makers. Changes to these rules require a two-thirds majority of
> active decision makers.

Changing rules requires 2/3 vote. Everything else requires simple majority. Listing cases for simple vote makes no sense legally, as there is no fallback left. Simple vote is the fallback. I see that this has been similar in the existing rules (though, with other words). If you still want to regroup the voting rules, one should remove the list and go for something like "Votes are decided by simple majority vote. Changes to these rules ...". If you step back from regrouping, I would keep the existing phrase and not touch it.

> 6. [...] to all project resources.

I don't like the word "resources" here. Resources is what you require to produce something else. Either, we get rid of the functional context and just use project "areas" or my "compartments", or we try to find something that not so much expresses the educts of a process.

> 7. [...]

What happened to "Project members are free to suggest suitable people."?

> 10. Each infrastructure service requires at [...]

I personally would keep the old paragraph here just with the typo fixed. I don't see a reason to change it or a benefit by the changed version.

So far for now.

Best

Adrian

> 
> > A formal proposal to vote shall follow this process: A brief description of
> the proposal must be moved and seconded on the OpenWrt-Adm list. After
> any discussion has settled, any decision maker may call the question, request
> a vote on a final draft of the proposal, and specify how long the vote will be
> held open.
> 
> This makes it clear that;
> 
> - There's a clear process to advance a proposal for a formal vote
> - We have a written description of what we're being asked to voted on
> - There's a mechanism for "limiting debate" when the positions have become
> clear
> - Each proposal can set its own duration for keeping the vote open
> 
> Other changes:
> 
> - s/committer/decision maker/
> - s/Decisionmaker/decision maker/
> - Certain refactoring/combining of rules re: majority/two-thirds vote, rights &
> privileges, etc.
> - *All* infrastructure requires three admins
> - A few other edits
> 
> SOOOOO... I move that we discuss the RC3 proposal at
> https://openwrt.org/playground/richb/rules-rc3
> 
> Do I have a second? :-)
> 
> (NB: A person who seconds the motion isn't necessarily agreeing to vote for
> the motion - only that we should continue to discuss it...)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Rich
> 
> > On Nov 29, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Adrian Schmutzler
> <mail at adrianschmutzler.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi again to this old thread,
> >
> >> My main problem is that a lot of descriptive text is added that - in
> >> my opinion
> >> - is not necessary.
> >>
> >> After all, the proposal reads more like a (explanatory) comment to a
> >> set of rules than a set of rules itself. (E.g. point 3 is actually
> >> not a rule at all, but just an explanation why the other rules are
> >> chosen like they are. In a law or constitution, stuff like that would
> >> be moved into a preamble.)
> >>
> >> And where it actually adds a new precise detail (the vote deadline),
> >> my personal view is that this shouldn't be carved into stone, as it
> >> would make us inflexible. (I'd actually also drop point 7 entirely,
> >> as its first part is actually trivial).
> >>
> >> So, my problem is a general one. I will try to have a look how we can
> >> resolve this situation (always speaking from my personal point of
> >> view, of course) during the next few days.
> >
> > I've had a look at the rules and tried to implement the changes in a more
> minimal-invasive way. This essentially takes up the motivation of the decision
> maker tasks from Rich's proposal, but keeps everything else to the existing
> set of rules. I.e. this is only about the "decision maker" role and how it is
> named and framed, but not touching the other things.
> >
> > This approach will only change the rules 1, 4 and 5, while everything else is
> untouched except for the replacement of "committer" with "decision
> maker". Update rules 1, 4, 5:
> >
> > 1. The OpenWrt project is governed by a group of „decision makers“, who
> have demonstrated a strong commitment to OpenWrt, e.g. by high quality
> contributions of code, documentation, organization and/or leadership. The
> only role distinction within the project is between decision makers and non-
> decision-makers, there is no core developer group or other specially
> privileged members.
> >
> > 4. Decision makers being unreachable for three months in a row shall get
> their status revoked in order to retain the ability to do majority votes among
> the remaining active decision makers.
> >
> > 5. Decision makers have the right to get access to all project compartments,
> there is no partial or otherwise restricted access.
> >
> > Apart from that, we have a typo in rule 9:
> >
> > likelyhood -> likelihood
> >
> > Of course, this is just meant as an offer as well, aiming at those people that
> don't want to rewrite the entire set of rules.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Adrian
> > _______________________________________________
> > openwrt-adm mailing list
> > openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20201203/ff8c7172/attachment.sig>