Revising OpenWrt Rules

Wed Oct 14 19:00:06 EDT 2020

Hi Rich,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openwrt-adm [mailto:openwrt-adm-bounces at lists.openwrt.org] On
> Behalf Of Rich Brown
> Sent: Mittwoch, 14. Oktober 2020 20:37
> To: Richard E. Brown <richb.hanover at gmail.com>
> Cc: OpenWrt Project Administration <openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org>
> Subject: Re: Revising OpenWrt Rules
> 
> I offer the following as a "Release Candidate 1" replacement for the original
> OpenWrt Rules at https://openwrt.org/rules. I believe they are a fair
> summary of the responses to my original notes.
> 
> Much of this is a restatement of the original rules, retaining those procedures
> but making explicit the sense of trust between people that underlies the
> current rules.
> 
> I did inject a change in establishing a 14-day period for formal votes on the
> OpenWrt-Admin list. There were two reasons: for agility - to prevent
> undecided issues from "hanging out there" indefinitely, and also to provide a
> basis for detecting when we should ask Decisionmakers whether they wish
> to participate further.
> 
> As an RC1 document, further comments are welcome.
> 
> Finally, thank you for all the deeply considered responses and for the
> delightfully respectful discussion. It makes me proud to be a member of the
> Project.

Thanks again for taking care of this important matter.

I'm a fan of the current OpenWrt rules as they define everything necessary in a short but precise way.

Unfortunately, I must say that I'm surprised by the amount of changes that are proposed here.
My understanding of the virtual meeting was that we discussed necessary changes about the role of the committers ("decision makers") and who would be eligible to become one.

I'm fine with the term "decision makers", and my change would have been to simply replace the "committers" by "decision makers". The only sentence that needed to be altered content-wise would be the first rule, and "full commit rights" -> "full access" in rule 5. This would solve our problem, and mostly keep the simple, established rules in place.

I'm sorry, but I didn't expect so much other things to be altered and added here, or I would have raised concerns earlier in the process.
Personally I'd rather keep it simple, and only change the few things necessary to address the problem.

Best

Adrian

> 
> Rich
> 
> -----------
> 
> OpenWrt Project Rules - RC1 14Oct2020
> 
> 1. The OpenWrt Project (the "Project") is governed by a group of
> Decisionmakers who have demonstrated a long-standing commitment to
> OpenWrt through high quality contributions of code, documentation,
> organization, or leadership of the Project.
> 
> 2. Decisionmakers affect the direction of the Project - product features,
> code, documentation, governance - by their personal efforts, by proposing
> changes to other Decisionmakers, and by approving contributions from
> others. The Project adopts proposals by a majority vote of all
> Decisionmakers.
> 
> 3. OpenWrt's success hinges on the trust of character and judgement
> developed between Decisionmakers. Because of that trust, the Project can
> move forward without requiring every Decisionmaker to examine and agree
> to every decision.
> 
> 4. A contributor to OpenWrt may become a Decisionmaker when it is obvious
> that they have a track record of high quality contributions (code,
> documentation, organizational suggestions, etc.) that enhance the project.
> After a nomination by a Decisionmaker and second by another, a simple
> majority vote is required to welcome a new Decisionmaker. The current list
> of Decisionmakers appears on this page. [Move the current list of "People"
> from the https://openwrt.org/about page]
> 
> 5. To ensure that OpenWrt always has a quorum for votes, Decisionmakers
> are required to remain active in the project. We will develop a process
> whereby we can remind members of their obligations, and remove them
> from the list if they no longer wish to participate, or do not participate in
> votes for three months.
> 
> 6. Decisionmakers owe an obligation of transparency to the members of the
> OpenWrt community. All decisions must be made public on the Project
> website. To the extent possible (exempting, for example, certain matters
> such as personnel and security issues), the decision making process should
> also be conducted in public.
> 
> 7. Discussions of proposals may take place in any venue: the OpenWrt-Admin
> list, the OpenWrt-Devel list, the IRC channels, the OpenWrt Forum, and
> elsewhere. A formal call for a vote on the OpenWrt-Admin list will be held
> open for 14 days: Decisionmakers must respond (with approve, disapprove,
> abstain, or a request for more information) in that time frame.
> 
> 8. Any Decisionmaker may request, and automatically be granted, permission
> to commit changes to code, the documentation, forum, etc. However, we
> rely on the judgement of all Decisionmakers to recognize their strengths and
> we expect they will only request the permissions necessary for their
> participation.
> 
> 9. Any infrastructure should be FOSS, whether outsourced or operating on
> Project servers. Any service requires at least three people with full rights to
> administer it. Those administrators will be documented publicly.
> 
> 10. The Project will not provide email accounts to individuals under its domain
> name.
> 
> 11. Changes to these rules require a two-thirds majority vote of
> Decisionmakers.
> 
> 12. All OpenWrt community members agree to be nice to each other.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201015/4fff94aa/attachment.sig>