Revising OpenWrt Rules - Minimal-invasive approach

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello Adrian

Looks all right and make sense from my point of view on the basis of 
recent discussions.

Regards
Fernando

On 29/11/2020 18:43, Adrian Schmutzler 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