From thess at kitschensync.net  Mon Jun  2 10:51:20 2025
From: thess at kitschensync.net (Ted Hess)
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 17:51:20 +0000
Subject: Improving OpenWrt internal communication
In-Reply-To: <671e669a-f077-468a-b0ec-4a04f8004234@hauke-m.de>
References: <671e669a-f077-468a-b0ec-4a04f8004234@hauke-m.de>
Message-ID: <emda7def4a-3359-49d8-a080-64b7b6f290fc@twonky7>

Any resolution to the lack of communication is fine with me - I'd like 
to use a private group/topic in the forum for members only, but that is 
only my opinion. What I would really like to see is that communication 
happens on any number of subjects and that actions are taken. Today's 
indifference to Wiki management is deafening.

Regarding contact at openwrt.org (I know you want to skip this for now).

The current setup forwards this to freescout. The freescout mailbox 
contains >7K messages - really! There are 2 commented out former lists 
for contacts of about >20 addresses however, the current alias is just 
'freescout at openwrt.org'.

How do I get access to freescout? I have full system access (test-01), 
but no account to use the app.

/ted (who doesn't expect an answer)

On 5/30/2025 8:42:29 AM, "Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Like described in the failed vote about 2 months ago [0], [1] we have some communication problems in the OpenWrt project.
>
>In the previous vote mail I did not provide detailed examples to protect other parties, but I do not see that the situation improved.
>
>Here are some examples from the last 3 months of not so good communication I am aware of, maybe there is more communication going on which I am not aware of. I would like to find a way how we can improve this in the future.
>
>Problem examples:
>For example there was an exchange about OpenWrt involvement in ETSI activities related to the CRA between SFC, FSFE and OpenWrt, as far as I understood. I was only getting aware of this some months later in private after I posted something on the public mailing list about this topic, see [2].
>For such activities it would be nice if all OpenWrt project members are getting informed. I wrote the mail to the public list only because Ilu contacted me and I exchanged some mails with here about this topic.
>
>There is an unofficial OpenWrt meetup at the WCW in Berlin this weekend [3]. I do not know who exactly was invited, all communication with me happened in 1:1 chats in Signal.
>
>Regarding the OpenWrt two development I only got some rumors that it is hitting some challenges with some vendors and it is not clear if it will finish, but I do not have much more information that the vote. These information were only shared orally with me and are maybe also wrong or outdated.
>
>I was contacted by someone from Capgemini who is doing a study for the European Commission about Radio Equipment Directive (RED) for an interview to provide OpenWrt's perspective about this. I shared the request with some people in a private mail. The person also contacted contact at openwrt.org 6 times, but nobody noticed.
>
>We also had some discussions some years ago when we were unhappy with SFC actions or none actions. This was only discussed in private.
>
>
>Proposal:
>I would like to have a private mailing list which all OpenWrt committers can read and write to, but which is not public readable. Maybe we can make it public writable, that would make it easy to ad the mailing list into CC when communicating with other parties.
>
>I think just saying we will improve and move all communication onto the public openwrt-adm mailing list will not work. I see that I and also some other people, are sometimes doing bilateral communication to prepare writing something to openwrt-adm, seeing it more as an announcement channel. I intentionally did not mention any people in the examples in this mail, on a private mailing list I would probably have done it.
>
>
>Other remarks:
>I think it is now even worse than the time when the LEDE fork was done, but maybe I only have some part of the information from that time. I like that the votes and release planning is done in public and not on openwrt-hackers, the old private mailing list, but some communication also moved to 1:1 communication which is even worse from my point of view.
>
>We have already private mailing list or will have soon for some groups like infrastructure and buildbot management. These mailing list are probably helpful.
>
>I would keep the handling of conatct at openwrt.org out of this discussion for now. I still think it is not working, we miss too many mails send to contact at openwrt.org, maybe we should just remove the links from the website.
>
>What are your opinions on this topic?
>Does someone have a better idea that a mailing list only OpenWrt committers can read, but everyone can write to?
>
>
>Hauke
>
>
>[0]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2025-April/002672.html
>[1]: https://openwrt.org/voting/2025-04-04-private-mailing-list
>[2]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2025-April/043899.html
>[3]: https://wiki.freifunk.net/Wireless_Community_Weekend_2025:Participants
>
>_______________________________________________
>openwrt-adm mailing list
>openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
>https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm



From ynezz at true.cz  Mon Jun  9 02:31:29 2025
From: ynezz at true.cz (Petr =?utf-8?Q?=C5=A0tetiar?=)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 11:31:29 +0200
Subject: Discussion on Addressing Voting Issues and Proposed Update to
 Committer Rules
In-Reply-To: <88716a25-70fc-4860-a5db-2a9df0c21107@hauke-m.de>
References: <88716a25-70fc-4860-a5db-2a9df0c21107@hauke-m.de>
Message-ID: <20250609093129.GB48161@meh.true.cz>

Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de> [2025-05-03 18:45:48]:

Hi,

> The current rule regarding inactive committers is not functioning as
> intended:
> > Committers being unreachable for three months in a row shall get
> > their commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability
> > to do majority votes among the remaining active committers.
> 
> Proposal for an Inactive Committer Category
> 
> I?d like to propose introducing a formal ?inactive committer? category. The
> core idea is to provide a clearer distinction between active and inactive
> participants, as well as improve security by reducing the number of people
> with access to our repositories.

I like KISS stuff and thus I like the idea of counting only votes of participants in
the ongoing vote. So basically a reverse approach, considering only Active
Committers.

  previous:  decided by simple majority votes
  new:       decided by simple majority votes cast by participants in the current vote

 --- rules.txt	2025-06-09 09:16:38.006001404 +0000
 +++ rules-next.txt	2025-06-09 09:19:15.091088134 +0000
 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
  The only role distinction within the OpenWrt (former LEDE) project is between committers and non-committers, there is no core developer group or other specially privileged members.
  All committers have the right to vote and are invited to liberally exercise this voting right in order to keep a broad consensus on project matters.
 -Project matters, overall development directions etc. are decided by simple majority votes. Votes may be held in different ways like simple yes/no decisions, majority decisions among multiple proposed choices etc.
 +Project matters, overall development directions etc. are decided by simple majority votes cast by participants in the current vote. Votes may be held in different ways like simple yes/no decisions, majority decisions among multiple proposed choices etc.
  Committers being unreachable for three months in a row shall get their commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability to do majority votes among the remaining active committers.
  There shall be only full commit rights in any case, no partial access or otherwise restricted access to the repositories.
  Frequent contributors may become committers after a simple majority agreement among existing committers. Project members are free to suggest suitable people.

BTW not my original idea, I've collected this from at least 2 different members
during the years.

Cheers,

Petr


From robimarko at gmail.com  Mon Jun  9 02:56:21 2025
From: robimarko at gmail.com (Robert Marko)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 11:56:21 +0200
Subject: Discussion on Addressing Voting Issues and Proposed Update to
 Committer Rules
In-Reply-To: <20250609093129.GB48161@meh.true.cz>
References: <88716a25-70fc-4860-a5db-2a9df0c21107@hauke-m.de> <20250609093129.GB48161@meh.true.cz>
Message-ID: <CAOX2RU655_-qkQS4=goCCpJmWd_u+-Ope-XDdVarsjj=57Rrdg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 at 11:43, Petr ?tetiar <ynezz at true.cz> wrote:
>
> Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de> [2025-05-03 18:45:48]:
>
> Hi,
>
> > The current rule regarding inactive committers is not functioning as
> > intended:
> > > Committers being unreachable for three months in a row shall get
> > > their commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability
> > > to do majority votes among the remaining active committers.
> >
> > Proposal for an Inactive Committer Category
> >
> > I?d like to propose introducing a formal ?inactive committer? category. The
> > core idea is to provide a clearer distinction between active and inactive
> > participants, as well as improve security by reducing the number of people
> > with access to our repositories.
>
> I like KISS stuff and thus I like the idea of counting only votes of participants in
> the ongoing vote. So basically a reverse approach, considering only Active
> Committers.
>
>   previous:  decided by simple majority votes
>   new:       decided by simple majority votes cast by participants in the current vote

I would like this, as its getting nearly impossible reaching a quorum currently.

Regards,
Robert
>
>  --- rules.txt  2025-06-09 09:16:38.006001404 +0000
>  +++ rules-next.txt     2025-06-09 09:19:15.091088134 +0000
>  @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>   The only role distinction within the OpenWrt (former LEDE) project is between committers and non-committers, there is no core developer group or other specially privileged members.
>   All committers have the right to vote and are invited to liberally exercise this voting right in order to keep a broad consensus on project matters.
>  -Project matters, overall development directions etc. are decided by simple majority votes. Votes may be held in different ways like simple yes/no decisions, majority decisions among multiple proposed choices etc.
>  +Project matters, overall development directions etc. are decided by simple majority votes cast by participants in the current vote. Votes may be held in different ways like simple yes/no decisions, majority decisions among multiple proposed choices etc.
>   Committers being unreachable for three months in a row shall get their commit and voting rights revoked in order to retain the ability to do majority votes among the remaining active committers.
>   There shall be only full commit rights in any case, no partial access or otherwise restricted access to the repositories.
>   Frequent contributors may become committers after a simple majority agreement among existing committers. Project members are free to suggest suitable people.
>
> BTW not my original idea, I've collected this from at least 2 different members
> during the years.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Petr
>
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm


From nbd at nbd.name  Mon Jun  9 11:52:13 2025
From: nbd at nbd.name (Felix Fietkau)
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2025 20:52:13 +0200
Subject: Rule changes / Voting issues
Message-ID: <313fe731-5ca7-4c6a-bffe-672b04396316@nbd.name>

Hi,

I took a look at various proposals regarding voting rules changes, and 
here's my take on this subject:

I think RichB's rework of the rules [1] from is a good starting point.
The quorum of 1/3 of active members seems like a step in the right 
direction as well.

However, I do think that we can make it more future proof by using 
Baptiste Jonglez's suggested quorum of 3/2 * sqrt(N), which is based on 
parts of Debian's voting system. By not increasing the quorum linearly 
with more members, we can avoid some scaling issues here.

My proposed modified text based on RichB's draft would be:

* For a simple approval, the proposal must achieve a two-thirds majority
   among the active members who participate in the vote.
   Additionally, the number of approving members must be at least
   3/2 * sqrt(N), with N = the total number of active members,
   regardless of whether they participated in the vote.

Maybe we could even make it even easier to reach quorum by having a 
separate "voting member" status, which is opt-in for all members.
We could allow members without that status to participate in any vote, 
but in cases where they don't, we would just not consider them for the 
sake of reaching quorum.

That way, having more members who don't care about most voting issues 
and contribute only infrequently will not make it harder to have 
successful votes.

Aside from voting on rule changes soon, we should also try to contact 
some inactive members as soon as possible. If for any reason we fail to 
reach quorum on voting for the rule change, we might have a better 
chance in 3 months after a response timeout.

- Felix

[1]: https://github.com/richb-hanover/OpenWrtRules


From mail at aparcar.org  Thu Jun 19 08:03:58 2025
From: mail at aparcar.org (Paul Spooren)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 17:03:58 +0200
Subject: Improving OpenWrt internal communication
In-Reply-To: <emda7def4a-3359-49d8-a080-64b7b6f290fc@twonky7>
References: <671e669a-f077-468a-b0ec-4a04f8004234@hauke-m.de>
 <emda7def4a-3359-49d8-a080-64b7b6f290fc@twonky7>
Message-ID: <9E0A09E8-1D5C-4123-AD94-68358D76D501@aparcar.org>

Hey Ted,

I added an account for you, please check your email. If can, let?s get some spam filtering going :)

Best,
Paul

> On 2. Jun 2025, at 19:51, Ted Hess <thess at kitschensync.net> wrote:
> 
> Any resolution to the lack of communication is fine with me - I'd like to use a private group/topic in the forum for members only, but that is only my opinion. What I would really like to see is that communication happens on any number of subjects and that actions are taken. Today's indifference to Wiki management is deafening.
> 
> Regarding contact at openwrt.org (I know you want to skip this for now).
> 
> The current setup forwards this to freescout. The freescout mailbox contains >7K messages - really! There are 2 commented out former lists for contacts of about >20 addresses however, the current alias is just 'freescout at openwrt.org'.
> 
> How do I get access to freescout? I have full system access (test-01), but no account to use the app.
> 
> /ted (who doesn't expect an answer)
> 
> On 5/30/2025 8:42:29 AM, "Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Like described in the failed vote about 2 months ago [0], [1] we have some communication problems in the OpenWrt project.
>> 
>> In the previous vote mail I did not provide detailed examples to protect other parties, but I do not see that the situation improved.
>> 
>> Here are some examples from the last 3 months of not so good communication I am aware of, maybe there is more communication going on which I am not aware of. I would like to find a way how we can improve this in the future.
>> 
>> Problem examples:
>> For example there was an exchange about OpenWrt involvement in ETSI activities related to the CRA between SFC, FSFE and OpenWrt, as far as I understood. I was only getting aware of this some months later in private after I posted something on the public mailing list about this topic, see [2].
>> For such activities it would be nice if all OpenWrt project members are getting informed. I wrote the mail to the public list only because Ilu contacted me and I exchanged some mails with here about this topic.
>> 
>> There is an unofficial OpenWrt meetup at the WCW in Berlin this weekend [3]. I do not know who exactly was invited, all communication with me happened in 1:1 chats in Signal.
>> 
>> Regarding the OpenWrt two development I only got some rumors that it is hitting some challenges with some vendors and it is not clear if it will finish, but I do not have much more information that the vote. These information were only shared orally with me and are maybe also wrong or outdated.
>> 
>> I was contacted by someone from Capgemini who is doing a study for the European Commission about Radio Equipment Directive (RED) for an interview to provide OpenWrt's perspective about this. I shared the request with some people in a private mail. The person also contacted contact at openwrt.org 6 times, but nobody noticed.
>> 
>> We also had some discussions some years ago when we were unhappy with SFC actions or none actions. This was only discussed in private.
>> 
>> 
>> Proposal:
>> I would like to have a private mailing list which all OpenWrt committers can read and write to, but which is not public readable. Maybe we can make it public writable, that would make it easy to ad the mailing list into CC when communicating with other parties.
>> 
>> I think just saying we will improve and move all communication onto the public openwrt-adm mailing list will not work. I see that I and also some other people, are sometimes doing bilateral communication to prepare writing something to openwrt-adm, seeing it more as an announcement channel. I intentionally did not mention any people in the examples in this mail, on a private mailing list I would probably have done it.
>> 
>> 
>> Other remarks:
>> I think it is now even worse than the time when the LEDE fork was done, but maybe I only have some part of the information from that time. I like that the votes and release planning is done in public and not on openwrt-hackers, the old private mailing list, but some communication also moved to 1:1 communication which is even worse from my point of view.
>> 
>> We have already private mailing list or will have soon for some groups like infrastructure and buildbot management. These mailing list are probably helpful.
>> 
>> I would keep the handling of conatct at openwrt.org out of this discussion for now. I still think it is not working, we miss too many mails send to contact at openwrt.org, maybe we should just remove the links from the website.
>> 
>> What are your opinions on this topic?
>> Does someone have a better idea that a mailing list only OpenWrt committers can read, but everyone can write to?
>> 
>> 
>> Hauke
>> 
>> 
>> [0]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2025-April/002672.html
>> [1]: https://openwrt.org/voting/2025-04-04-private-mailing-list
>> [2]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2025-April/043899.html
>> [3]: https://wiki.freifunk.net/Wireless_Community_Weekend_2025:Participants
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20250619/e33bdd05/attachment.sig>

From thess at kitschensync.net  Thu Jun 19 11:05:15 2025
From: thess at kitschensync.net (Ted Hess)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:05:15 +0000
Subject: Improving OpenWrt internal communication
In-Reply-To: <9E0A09E8-1D5C-4123-AD94-68358D76D501@aparcar.org>
References: <671e669a-f077-468a-b0ec-4a04f8004234@hauke-m.de>
 <emda7def4a-3359-49d8-a080-64b7b6f290fc@twonky7>
 <9E0A09E8-1D5C-4123-AD94-68358D76D501@aparcar.org>
Message-ID: <em68faeff9-ca4f-4616-9b56-61f3cf36f109@twonky7>

Thanks for the acct. Do I have any admin privs?

I take it the spam filtering you are asking about is for the freescout 
mbox on test-01? Are you thinking of some front-end process for Dovecot, 
spam filter add-on for freescout or just some hand weeding which I think 
is necessary at-the-moment?

Does anyone regularly read this -- I cc'd "contact" just to see if we 
are getting anything.
/ted

On 6/19/2025 11:03:58 AM, "Paul Spooren" <mail at aparcar.org> wrote:

>Hey Ted,
>
>I added an account for you, please check your email. If can, let?s get some spam filtering going :)
>
>Best,
>Paul
>
>>  On 2. Jun 2025, at 19:51, Ted Hess <thess at kitschensync.net> wrote:
>>
>>  Any resolution to the lack of communication is fine with me - I'd like to use a private group/topic in the forum for members only, but that is only my opinion. What I would really like to see is that communication happens on any number of subjects and that actions are taken. Today's indifference to Wiki management is deafening.
>>
>>  Regarding contact at openwrt.org (I know you want to skip this for now).
>>
>>  The current setup forwards this to freescout. The freescout mailbox contains >7K messages - really! There are 2 commented out former lists for contacts of about >20 addresses however, the current alias is just 'freescout at openwrt.org'.
>>
>>  How do I get access to freescout? I have full system access (test-01), but no account to use the app.
>>
>>  /ted (who doesn't expect an answer)
>>
>>  On 5/30/2025 8:42:29 AM, "Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>>  Like described in the failed vote about 2 months ago [0], [1] we have some communication problems in the OpenWrt project.
>>>
>>>  In the previous vote mail I did not provide detailed examples to protect other parties, but I do not see that the situation improved.
>>>
>>>  Here are some examples from the last 3 months of not so good communication I am aware of, maybe there is more communication going on which I am not aware of. I would like to find a way how we can improve this in the future.
>>>
>>>  Problem examples:
>>>  For example there was an exchange about OpenWrt involvement in ETSI activities related to the CRA between SFC, FSFE and OpenWrt, as far as I understood. I was only getting aware of this some months later in private after I posted something on the public mailing list about this topic, see [2].
>>>  For such activities it would be nice if all OpenWrt project members are getting informed. I wrote the mail to the public list only because Ilu contacted me and I exchanged some mails with here about this topic.
>>>
>>>  There is an unofficial OpenWrt meetup at the WCW in Berlin this weekend [3]. I do not know who exactly was invited, all communication with me happened in 1:1 chats in Signal.
>>>
>>>  Regarding the OpenWrt two development I only got some rumors that it is hitting some challenges with some vendors and it is not clear if it will finish, but I do not have much more information that the vote. These information were only shared orally with me and are maybe also wrong or outdated.
>>>
>>>  I was contacted by someone from Capgemini who is doing a study for the European Commission about Radio Equipment Directive (RED) for an interview to provide OpenWrt's perspective about this. I shared the request with some people in a private mail. The person also contacted contact at openwrt.org 6 times, but nobody noticed.
>>>
>>>  We also had some discussions some years ago when we were unhappy with SFC actions or none actions. This was only discussed in private.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Proposal:
>>>  I would like to have a private mailing list which all OpenWrt committers can read and write to, but which is not public readable. Maybe we can make it public writable, that would make it easy to ad the mailing list into CC when communicating with other parties.
>>>
>>>  I think just saying we will improve and move all communication onto the public openwrt-adm mailing list will not work. I see that I and also some other people, are sometimes doing bilateral communication to prepare writing something to openwrt-adm, seeing it more as an announcement channel. I intentionally did not mention any people in the examples in this mail, on a private mailing list I would probably have done it.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Other remarks:
>>>  I think it is now even worse than the time when the LEDE fork was done, but maybe I only have some part of the information from that time. I like that the votes and release planning is done in public and not on openwrt-hackers, the old private mailing list, but some communication also moved to 1:1 communication which is even worse from my point of view.
>>>
>>>  We have already private mailing list or will have soon for some groups like infrastructure and buildbot management. These mailing list are probably helpful.
>>>
>>>  I would keep the handling of conatct at openwrt.org out of this discussion for now. I still think it is not working, we miss too many mails send to contact at openwrt.org, maybe we should just remove the links from the website.
>>>
>>>  What are your opinions on this topic?
>>>  Does someone have a better idea that a mailing list only OpenWrt committers can read, but everyone can write to?
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hauke
>>>
>>>
>>>  [0]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2025-April/002672.html
>>>  [1]: https://openwrt.org/voting/2025-04-04-private-mailing-list
>>>  [2]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2025-April/043899.html
>>>  [3]: https://wiki.freifunk.net/Wireless_Community_Weekend_2025:Participants
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>  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
>



From mail at aparcar.org  Thu Jun 19 12:20:05 2025
From: mail at aparcar.org (Paul Spooren)
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 21:20:05 +0200
Subject: Improving OpenWrt internal communication
In-Reply-To: <em68faeff9-ca4f-4616-9b56-61f3cf36f109@twonky7>
References: <671e669a-f077-468a-b0ec-4a04f8004234@hauke-m.de>
 <emda7def4a-3359-49d8-a080-64b7b6f290fc@twonky7>
 <9E0A09E8-1D5C-4123-AD94-68358D76D501@aparcar.org>
 <em68faeff9-ca4f-4616-9b56-61f3cf36f109@twonky7>
Message-ID: <C0ACA0EC-6957-4989-ABCD-DBE6340F8E59@aparcar.org>

Hello again,

> Thanks for the acct. Do I have any admin privs?

You?re an admin - sorry, you should have been from the beginning!

> I take it the spam filtering you are asking about is for the freescout mbox on test-01? Are you thinking of some front-end process for Dovecot, spam filter add-on for freescout or just some hand weeding which I think is necessary at-the-moment?

Maybe Stintel can help out here?

> 
> Does anyone regularly read this -- I cc'd "contact" just to see if we are getting anything.

During the last OpenWrt dev meeting I said to take that role as long as there is some spam filtering happening.

Paul

> /ted
> 
> On 6/19/2025 11:03:58 AM, "Paul Spooren" <mail at aparcar.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hey Ted,
>> 
>> I added an account for you, please check your email. If can, let?s get some spam filtering going :)
>> 
>> Best,
>> Paul
>> 
>>> On 2. Jun 2025, at 19:51, Ted Hess <thess at kitschensync.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Any resolution to the lack of communication is fine with me - I'd like to use a private group/topic in the forum for members only, but that is only my opinion. What I would really like to see is that communication happens on any number of subjects and that actions are taken. Today's indifference to Wiki management is deafening.
>>> 
>>> Regarding contact at openwrt.org (I know you want to skip this for now).
>>> 
>>> The current setup forwards this to freescout. The freescout mailbox contains >7K messages - really! There are 2 commented out former lists for contacts of about >20 addresses however, the current alias is just 'freescout at openwrt.org'.
>>> 
>>> How do I get access to freescout? I have full system access (test-01), but no account to use the app.
>>> 
>>> /ted (who doesn't expect an answer)
>>> 
>>> On 5/30/2025 8:42:29 AM, "Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Like described in the failed vote about 2 months ago [0], [1] we have some communication problems in the OpenWrt project.
>>>> 
>>>> In the previous vote mail I did not provide detailed examples to protect other parties, but I do not see that the situation improved.
>>>> 
>>>> Here are some examples from the last 3 months of not so good communication I am aware of, maybe there is more communication going on which I am not aware of. I would like to find a way how we can improve this in the future.
>>>> 
>>>> Problem examples:
>>>> For example there was an exchange about OpenWrt involvement in ETSI activities related to the CRA between SFC, FSFE and OpenWrt, as far as I understood. I was only getting aware of this some months later in private after I posted something on the public mailing list about this topic, see [2].
>>>> For such activities it would be nice if all OpenWrt project members are getting informed. I wrote the mail to the public list only because Ilu contacted me and I exchanged some mails with here about this topic.
>>>> 
>>>> There is an unofficial OpenWrt meetup at the WCW in Berlin this weekend [3]. I do not know who exactly was invited, all communication with me happened in 1:1 chats in Signal.
>>>> 
>>>> Regarding the OpenWrt two development I only got some rumors that it is hitting some challenges with some vendors and it is not clear if it will finish, but I do not have much more information that the vote. These information were only shared orally with me and are maybe also wrong or outdated.
>>>> 
>>>> I was contacted by someone from Capgemini who is doing a study for the European Commission about Radio Equipment Directive (RED) for an interview to provide OpenWrt's perspective about this. I shared the request with some people in a private mail. The person also contacted contact at openwrt.org 6 times, but nobody noticed.
>>>> 
>>>> We also had some discussions some years ago when we were unhappy with SFC actions or none actions. This was only discussed in private.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Proposal:
>>>> I would like to have a private mailing list which all OpenWrt committers can read and write to, but which is not public readable. Maybe we can make it public writable, that would make it easy to ad the mailing list into CC when communicating with other parties.
>>>> 
>>>> I think just saying we will improve and move all communication onto the public openwrt-adm mailing list will not work. I see that I and also some other people, are sometimes doing bilateral communication to prepare writing something to openwrt-adm, seeing it more as an announcement channel. I intentionally did not mention any people in the examples in this mail, on a private mailing list I would probably have done it.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Other remarks:
>>>> I think it is now even worse than the time when the LEDE fork was done, but maybe I only have some part of the information from that time. I like that the votes and release planning is done in public and not on openwrt-hackers, the old private mailing list, but some communication also moved to 1:1 communication which is even worse from my point of view.
>>>> 
>>>> We have already private mailing list or will have soon for some groups like infrastructure and buildbot management. These mailing list are probably helpful.
>>>> 
>>>> I would keep the handling of conatct at openwrt.org out of this discussion for now. I still think it is not working, we miss too many mails send to contact at openwrt.org, maybe we should just remove the links from the website.
>>>> 
>>>> What are your opinions on this topic?
>>>> Does someone have a better idea that a mailing list only OpenWrt committers can read, but everyone can write to?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hauke
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> [0]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2025-April/002672.html
>>>> [1]: https://openwrt.org/voting/2025-04-04-private-mailing-list
>>>> [2]: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2025-April/043899.html
>>>> [3]: https://wiki.freifunk.net/Wireless_Community_Weekend_2025:Participants
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20250619/59d3c7fb/attachment.sig>

