Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Imre Kaloz]

Hi,

This is a funky thread. I don't want to get into details on how Rich's original mail or some of the current ideas go against the project remerge agreement nor how trying to fix governance issues with more regulation shows how many history teachers failed people here.

People don't vote for numerous reasons. For example I didn't vote about dwmw's access given it has been agreed years ago once already. You can also decide to not vote if the decision is either going in the way you want or goes so much into the other way that it doesn't matter.

Most of these problems raised here are nonexistent - if you want to have a decision in 2 weeks you make the voting process last for two weeks, that's all.


Imre

P.S: A lot of people might not understand the reason why former core developers are not that active. Your favorite search engine might give you some ideas if you look for "state capture".



________________________________________
From: openwrt-adm <openwrt-adm-bounces at lists.openwrt.org> on behalf of Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 19:52
To: openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
Subject: Re: Revising OpenWrt Rules

On 28/10/2020 13:09, Sam Kuper wrote:
> <clip>
> I also propose a different criterion for forcing retirement of
> Decisionmakers.  I think it should be different because:
>
> - Decisionmakers with long-term dedication to OpenWrt might occasionally
>    experience life events that legitimately keep them away from OpenWrt
>    for >3 months (unexpected bereavements, serious illness, etc.).  It
>    seems healthiest (for OpenWrt *and* for the Decisionmaker) if
>    Decisionmakers are not under strong pressure to vote during such
>    periods, but can instead resume voting when recovered & clear-headed.

Why not if it happens, they don't show up for 3 months and losses its
Decisionmaker status, whenever they resume their activities they may
request again and it will be natural thing they be welcomed back again.

The important thing is to not leave it opened for too long waiting for
some Decisionsmakers to vote and that may not happen and things need to
move on. Even more importantly it is necessary to have the total number
of active Decisionmakers to be able to know what is the minimum number
of votes necessary for something to pass. If there are too many sleepy
Decisionmakers the minimum number of necessary votes will be higher and
that may compromise something that need to move on.

Regards
Fernando

> Maybe rule 12 should instead be rule 0, but only if others wouldn't find
> this too pushy.
>
> Thank you again for your excellent efforts!
>
> Sam
>

_______________________________________________
openwrt-adm mailing list
openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm