On Thu, 19 May 2016, John Crispin wrote:
On 19/05/2016 15:34, Bjørn Mork wrote:
John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> writes:
On 19/05/2016 14:48, Bjørn Mork wrote:
John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> writes:
On 09/05/2016 09:44, David Lang wrote:
I don't think that will be possible because it's different people
working on each tree. I know the OpenWRT folks deleted the @openwrt
e-mail addresses for the people working on LEDE. I would assume that
they have blocked commit access for those people ase well, but I don't
know for sure.
we are working on a solution to resolve this in the best possible manner
for everyone involved. please be patient for a few more days.
Any status update from the cabal? Maybe it's time to remove the
"Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community
participation and public meetings. "
goal from the web site now? You can put it back later when you make it a
priority.
Bjørn
we had various meetings all were public, people have been more active
than before and all decision made so far have been active.
was this just a drive by shooting or were you planning to achieve
anything useful by this mail ?
Maybe just drive-by..
But I believe you should realize that for an outsider, the "we are
working on a solution" does not sound too good. It is unclear who "we"
are, but it is very clear that it excludes the reader. This is
we means "the community" it is up to you to decide if you feel like part
of the community or not. you are most certainly invited to be part just
liek anyone doing constructive work.
<snip>
* we agreed publicly via transparent voting in the last meeting that we
will invite active package maintainers to participate in meetings and voting
Ok, it's not clear to me watching when 'we' would be the community of anyone
commenting on this list vs the smaller 'we' that are the people invited to the
meetings.
There are legitimate times for each definition, I'm not saying that all meetings
should be open to the world.
But in any case, could the inner/maintainer team send a quick blurb to the list
when a meeting has happened with some info on it? At least for meetings where
policy decisions are made.
I can see good reasons not to publish too much detail about meetings between the
two projects (if there are disagreements, it's too easy for the writeup to cause
more grief for example)
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
