Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Adrian Schmutzler]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openwrt-adm [mailto:openwrt-adm-bounces at lists.openwrt.org] On
> Behalf Of Rich Brown
> Sent: Mittwoch, 16. September 2020 02:02
> To: OpenWrt Project Administration <openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org>
> Cc: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de>
> Subject: Revising OpenWrt Rules
> 
> 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.

... "and by deciding on contributions from other developers that are no "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,

"Contributions" instead of "submissions"; submissions is more limited IMO.

> documentation, organizational suggestions, etc) that enhance the project.

... "and there is the expectation of a sustained interest in OpenWrt."

> After a nomination by (one? two?) Decisionmakers, a simple majority vote is

IMO it's better if a nomination has been discussed with other decisionmakers before posting it, but I wouldn't make that a requirement.

> 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,

"... be granted access to all subsystems/compartments/whatever, e.g. permission to commit changes ..."

> forum, etc. However, we rely on the judgement of all Decisionmakers to
> recognize their strengths and only request the permissions necessary for
> their participation.

instead of "and only request ..." I'd be more general and put something like "... and use their power wisely."

As expressed already in the virtual meeting, I think every "Decisionmaker" should have the _right_ to get access everywhere, as anything different would introduce ranks between us.
It's our task to choose people wisely so they act responsibly without a need to control them.

Of course, this doesn't mean everybody will get access everywhere _automatically_. I think if somebody is accepted, it will be obvious what he/she is interested in, and the person will get access there. So a coder might obviously get access to git.openwrt.org and GitHub, but won't miss Wiki admin rights and adding him there by default might be a waste of time anyway...

Best

Adrian

> 
> 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
-------------- 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/20200923/3e119106/attachment.sig>