Hi Oswald, > well, that's kinda the key here, isn't it? i don't know whether the > lede infrastructure and participation was technically open from the > start, but the fact that nobody except "the cabal" knew about it > makes the whole "open" thing a bit of a cynical joke.
we already learned that the way we started the project was far less than ideal and apparently left people in the dust and I think others involved agree that it could've handled in better, less hastily way. My personal hope (maybe I'm too naive) was that we invite further people and ask them to shape the project to their liking. So far the criticism seems to circle around the fact that we somehow have no credibility to claim openness because we secretly prepared the project. I follow that logic and agree with that, it is a screw up, probably due to the fact that nobody knew how to handle things in a better way. > the one thing that will make a big difference is plainly and openly > admitting the screwup ... and rebooting your "reboot". I see no problem with the admitting screw up part - at least not with apologizing about *how* things went. For rebooting the reboot though the project will need input from the wider audience. We cannot "reboot a reboot" if any feedback we get is accusations of being opaque or being a joke. What we need is agenda items getting proposed, people stepping forward offering to volunteer not only in technical but also in policy matters. > that doesn't mean starting from scratch, but instead openly and > forcibly pushing your alternatives within openwrt - as imre pointed > out, you have quite some real power. So you mean we should exercise our power and force a rebuild of the OpenWrt project to match our current vision of a project? What should we actually demand? What do we do if those demands are not accepted or being acted on? On whose behalf should we make those demands? If that is what the community wants then I'd like to see a broad consensus first and then someone not being part of the old "core developer" team should take the lead in negotiating with the OpenWrt project. Imho Johns, Felix and my relation to OpenWrt is tainted by now and I guess nobody would believe us acting objectively and neutral. > however controversial such an approach might be, it cannot possibly > do more damage to the community than this hostile fork does. I am not sure about that. Having public power fights without clear mandates or any kind of consensus can also just destroy the entire project, all involved peoples credibility and leave the community with a defunct project in the end as well. > regarding the open decision-making process: *the* channel for any > kind of serious discussion should be the open mailing list. - as > others pointed out, irc plain does not work for such stuff. the whole > concept of meetings (or generally real-time communication about > non-trivial matters) doesn't work for many people, so just scratch > it. It has been proposed to consider using http://liquidfeedback.org/ to implement the voting part. As for getting rid of meetings and discussing any decision processes on the list, we can try that - its just not as realtime as we're used to. > - alone the fact that "important stuff" happens "out of band" and > needs to be actively collected by those "passively interested" is a > problem. probably the problem that triggered bjoern's mail in the > first place. I agree, problem here is just that things get blown out of proportion. It is not as if we've had huge debates in the hiding so far. There's been one mail from Felix reaching out to OpenWrt, one counter question asking for clarification, one question about why someone wasn't CC'd, one further question a day later asking whether there is any interest and two one-line replies expressing interest. An agenda pad has been set up, containing essentially just the generic question on how to continue and the line "https://dev.openwrt.org/wiki/GoverningRules (draft status?) vs. https://www.lede-project.org/rules.html"; That is basically all - so the core problem here is that there just isn't anything to report. > anyway, that's my perspective as an outsider (who has 15 years of > experience in some *big* openly governed communities) ... As I tried to explain further up and as Daniel already wrote; getting used to open communication is hard, this means writing less terse replies, CC'ing appropriate lists etc. I am looking forward to valuable input and I am more than willing to adjust our mode of communication, but bear in mind that this is a rather long learning process. ~ Jo _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
