On Fri, 12 May 2017, Paul Oranje wrote:
Op 11 mei 2017, om 14:18 heeft Imre Kaloz <ka...@openwrt.org> het volgende
geschreven:
On 2017-05-11 00:33, Paul Oranje wrote:
Op 10 mei 2017, om 11:31 heeft Imre Kaloz <ka...@openwrt.org> het volgende
geschreven:
On 2017-05-10 00:52, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:
[cut]
*) SPI
- TBD post remerge
I'd prefer to tackle this first.
Before the merge non-OpenWrt people are outsiders from both SPI's and the
world's PoV. After the merge everyone can vote on these topics.
This does not feel right. The desire to have the ownership of the domain being
properly handled before bringing the project - which currently is LEDE - back
under the openwrt domain name is very reasonable. The fork this have a cause.
If I’ve misunderstood Imre’s position, please tell.
You did :) If you take a look at the original mail from John, that "TBD" is
there for SPI, the handling of the domain is before that point. This part is about how to
pick and elect the liaisons, as it has been explained before in John's reply to Rafal.
The SPI has a relationship with OpenWrt, not LEDE. When LEDE devs are OpenWrt devs, they
"become visible" for SPI. It's matter of steps you have to do in order, nothing
else.
Thank for the extra info.
So okay, but then agreement on the rules that governs the liason would probably
still be required before.
Stating that OpenWrt has an exclusive position with SPI - certainly true for
the name OpenWrt - ignores that the LEDE project itself now has so much to
offer and momentum that it could very well consider self setting up a relation
with SPI.
why should people spend time setting up a new relationship with SPI when the
re-merge is going to let them use the existing one? That sounds like a lot of
effort for nothing.
- start pushing to the openwrt organisation
By force-overwriting the history of openwrt/openwrt ?
No one said it won't cause a bit of pain, but would ease the transition on the
long run.
Seems the solution to un-fork may cause more problems than it solves. And all
that for just the name ?
I don't think rebasing your changes is that much of a pain, and this only
causes a hiccup for people who are using the OpenWrt git tree for real.
Probably true, but does concern pain of others ...
Why wouldn’t the re-merged project have its living repository named LEDE ? Is that a problem ?
(or is it wished for taht all commits on LEDE seem to be in openwrt ?)
The decision was made last year that the resulting codebase would be the LEDE
codebase, the OpenWRT devs were given commit rights to the LEDE repo so that
they could migrate over anything they considered significant.
So why would there be a separate LEDE and OpenWRT repo?
What I referred to is that LEDE explicitly decided not to issue e-mail
addresses in order to avoid that such address would place some people in a
special position, in order to avoid undue discrimination. Making exceptions
could amount to some being more equal than others.
There is 'some are more equal than others' and there is not breaking existing
communications channels.
You can never eliminate @openwrt.org addresses from all the documentation on the
Internet, or from everyone's address books, so it makes sense to have the
existing addresses keep working.
It has been decided that such addresses should not be handed out and generally
used going forward, but it's a reasonable compromise to keep the old addresses
working (redirecting to personal mailboxes or becoming mailing lists that the
voting members of the project can subscribe to).
The (soon to be former) LEDE developers don't want @openwrt.org addresses, so
providing a way to not break the existing addresses and not giving out new ones
doesn't seem like it is upsetting to any of the developers.
It seems like you are getting upset on the behalf of others, who aren't
themselves upset. That doesn't seem like a productive thing.
Intentions do matter until you've created the rules, after that the rules
might not serve the original intentions. Anyways, I only wanted to point out
that the current LEDE rules aren't perfect either. Don't get me wrong, the
OpenWrt ones [1] [2] weren't perfect either, specially because the majority
didn't care about them.
It seems that this is again a case of you being concerned on the behalf of
others. The discussions that have been taking place have included discussions on
the rules. If there are OpenWRT devs that are unhappy with the LEDE rules, I
would be expecting them to be speaking up in these discussions, and not in
general terms, but with what they specifically are unhappy with.
It almost sounds like you are trolling to stir up trouble where the principals
in the negotiation have not been disagreeing significantly.
David Lang
P.S. there is no blanket ban of LEDE discussion on the OpenWRT forums, but I
know that there are various people who have considered discussion of LEDE (or
DD-WRT, etc) to be off topic and have tried to shut down any discussions related
to it. I don't see this as being a policy, but rather the sort of thing that
happens when you have a bunch of people with modorator powers making independent
discussions._______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
