Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Rich Brown]

Fernando, thanks for your comments. I hope to hear more opinions.

I would especially like to hear from others re: commit permissions - should all Decisionmakers have commit rights? Or only allow people who have regularly submitted high-quality code? Some other guideline? 

Thanks!

Rich

> On Sep 21, 2020, at 11:30 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello. Thanks for taking the time to review it.
> Here are my inputs about this topic:
> 
> - Don't like the TOP acronym. Doesn't sound nice and the word 'top' may mean many different other things that don't have relation to OpenWrt Project
> 
> - I am fine with the term 'Decisionmakers' for now.
> 
> - Great to see that other people that are not necessarily coders can also become Decisionmakers, as for example people who may contribute in other areas like documentation, organizational, infrastructure, etc.
> 
> - Initially fine with a simple majority vote needed for someone to become a new Decisionmaker, but that should be of all currently enabled Decisionmakers and not just from those who voted or participated in that decision. This type of decision is important to be taken in such way because it may change well the weights of decisions and the future of the project significantly.
> 
> - In the other hand enabled Decisionmakers should always exercise their vote as one of the ways to be considered active in the project. If one doesn't participate on votes a certain number of times it may be considered inactive and lose its Decisionmaker status as stated in the current rules.
> 
> - I don't see as necessary all Decisionmakers to have commit permission. For example Decisionmakers that are not coders (those who look after documentation, sysadmins, project administration) don't need such permissions. Decisionmakers should always decide those who really need commit access and grant it whenever necessary and justified.
> 
> - Fine by all decisions to be made public, but if I understand correctly doesn't necessarily all discussion have to be. Example: a possible tough discussion about an exclusion of a Decisionmaker due to misbehavior or risk of damage the project that may have sensitive information that may not have benefit to go entirely public.
> 
> - Definitely 2/3 vote to change the rules and of all enabled Decisionmakers not just those who voted.
> 
> Best regards
> Fernando
> 
> On 15/09/2020 21:01, Rich Brown wrote:
>> Folks,
>> 
>> At the last OpenWrt call, I opened my (big) mouth and volunteered to review the OpenWrt Rules (https://openwrt.org/rules)
>> 
>> Before I draft anything specific, I wanted to throw out some general principles to make sure we're all on the same page.
>> 
>> I've taken the current Rules, our ad-hoc policies for "who has commit access", along with the recent discussions to formulate these principles. That said, I'm "makin' a lotta stuff up", so I solicit your thoughts, questions, and comments. Thanks.
>> 
>> Rich
>> 
>> -----------
>> 
>> General Principles:
>> 
>> The OpenWrt Project (TOP? might be a cool acronym...) is governed by a group of Decisionmakers (I'm open to other names - I'll use this term through the remainder of this document.) All Decisionmakers have demonstrated a long-standing commitment to OpenWrt through valuable contributions of code, documentation, organization, or leadership of the project.
>> 
>> Decisionmakers affect the direction of the project  - product features, code, documentation, governance - by their personal efforts and by proposing changes to other Decisionmakers. The project adopts proposals by a majority vote of all Decisionmakers.
>> 
>> OpenWrt's success hinges on the trust developed between Decisionmakers. Because they trust the judgement of other Decisionmakers, the project can move forward without every Decisionmaker needing to examine every issue.
>> 
>> A contributor to OpenWrt may become a Decisionmaker when it is obvious that they have a track record of high quality submissions (code, documentation, organizational suggestions, etc) that enhance the project. After a nomination by (one? two?) Decisionmakers, a simple majority vote is needed to welcome a new Decisionmaker.
>> 
>> 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 the Project can remind members of their obligations, and remove them from the rolls if they cannot/no longer wish to participate.
>> 
>> [I am less sure of this next point - I'm happy to discuss...] In the founding spirit of LEDE/OpenWrt, all Decisionmakers 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 only request the permissions necessary for their participation.
>> 
>> Assorted stuff that I don't think is controversial...
>> 
>> - All decisions need to be made public
>> - Any infrastructure (whether outsourced or run on our servers) requires at least three people with full admin rights
>> - Changing these rules requires 2/3 vote
>> - No "openwrt.org" email accounts
>> - Be nice to each other
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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