Discussion on Addressing Voting Issues and Proposed Update to Committer Rules

[elias at eliashaisch.de]

I remember there was a change in the voting rules after the LEDE split. I’m not entirely sure, but I believe I was able to vote about 10 years ago—perhaps without a solid basis.

I’ve been following the mailing list for a while and only recently realized that I’m no longer eligible to vote. 🫣🤣
I’m a bit embarrassed about the misunderstanding, but it doesn’t bother me too much—I haven’t contributed code in years. It was probably for the best that my server was removed from the mirror list back then; I hadn’t been able to maintain it properly.

That said, I’ve often wondered why voting is limited to code committers. In many organizations, there are people who don’t write code but still play an essential role—helping maintain vision, structure, and continuity. I believe non-code contributors—those involved through coordination, outreach, or ongoing support—can also have a valuable voice in shaping the project. Allowing them to vote might strengthen the project’s foundation and ensure broader, idealistic engagement.

Participation through the mailing list and community involvement might already be enough to qualify.

OpenWRT has been part of my life since my youth—even though I never really coded for it, it’s been a source of joy and learning. If I became a father for the third time, I’d probably go quiet for a while—but I’d still care.😅

In short: I think there’s a strong case for tying voting rights to meaningful engagement, not just commit access.

Best regards,
Elias
(Polished with AI assistance to avoid offending anyone with my messy English)

03.05.2025 23:42:01 Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de>:

> Hi Ted,
> 
> On 5/3/25 22:41, Ted Hess wrote:
>> Hi all -
>> Added my response to the bottom for those who prefer it that way ;)
>> On 5/3/2025 12:45:48 PM, "Hauke Mehrtens" <hauke at hauke-m.de> wrote:
>> 
> ......
>> 
>> I understand your frustration over the lack of voting participation. It is certainly an indication that the number of "committers" has become large with too many non-participants on questions of membership and organization. I essentially agree with your proposal but will reserve buy-in until we see the actual or proposed list of active and inactive members. I hope we do not find ourselves in a "catch-22" situation where we cannot get enough participants to adopt this proposal even.
> 
> 
> All current committers should transfer into the active committers section in the beginning. In the next step I will probably ask some people who haven't committed anything or send a mail to the public lists in the last 6 months if they want to move into the inactive category.
> 
> The proposed rules do not allow to force someone into the inactive committers list. Even when you are in this list, you can just move back again to active committers.
> 
>> That said, I'm sorry I didn't vote for DragonBluep - I didn't have any objection. I just was unfamiliar with his work and would have gladly gone along with others recommendations.
> 
> It would be nice if you would vote neutral in that case.
> 
>> The infrastructure issues currently existing are not in anyway helped by this rules proposal and should be a separate discussion among those who actually want to participate in its management. Forum and Wiki moderation is not currently or even in the past handled by "committers" - rather, just a handful of dedicated, helplful users.
> 
> Is this about changing committers into members or an other part of the proposal?
> Do you think this proposal increases the infrastructure problems?
> 
> Hauke
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm