On 12 May 2017 at 08:02, Edwin van Drunen <ed...@vandrunen.net> wrote: > I understand that the vote is done amongst the developers, the people > actually running the project, this makes sense. > But if the goal of the project is not only to keep yourself busy, but also to > target a larger audience, it makes sense to base some decisions on "market > research". > The name is very important for user perception and influences the audience > you will reach. > > If I may make some educated guesses, I suppose it were the LEDE developers > who mostly didn't care about the name and their vote could easily be > influenced by "external data", such as a user poll. > And I suppose it were mostly the OpenWRT developers that insisted on keeping > the OpenWRT name. > So if you would do a poll amongst a larger group (the audience), let the > developers see the results and then let them do the final vote, I think there > would no longer be a majority vote for going back to OpenWRT. > > The focus on involving the community more and also the LEDE name brought a > lot of goodwill, entirely because of the perception of professionalism. > In the future this will also influence the willingness of people and > companies to donate (money, equipment and time). > > With kind regards, > Edwin van Drunen >
Edwin, you educated guess is right on the money: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/lede-adm/2017-March/000436.html Interestingly, there was no "minor majority", there was an even tie, and a very story telling tie. I should also note that it is extremely important to ask the right question. You get what you ask for. Apparently, the developers voted on this question: "Re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt?" (see the link above) IMHO the question should have been "Should the merged project be called OpenWrt?" Because the issue is not whether to re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt, the issue is the whether the merged project should retain the old name that quite a few people consider to be tainted now. I hope that the developers who voted on the question "re-brand LEDE to OpenWrt" should at least consider voting on "should the merged project be called OpenWrt" before the final decision on the name of the merged project is made. >> On 12 May 2017, at 13:40, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Edwin van Drunen wrote: >> >>>>> I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that approach >>> >>> That would be too bad. >>> It seems to me that the vote was held amongst a small group of heavily >>> biased people, of which a part was responsible for the split between >>> OpenWRT and LEDE in the first place. >>> I am very sure if you would poll the large OpenWRT/LEDE user base the >>> results of such a vote would be quite different, but these people never get >>> asked anything >> >> the vote included all the LEDE voting developers who made the fork, but also >> the OpenWRT developers. >> >> no, the 'large OpenWRT/LEDE user base' was not part of the vote, both LEDE >> and OpenWRT limit the vote to a fairly small set of people who contribute to >> the code (very common in opensource projects. I don't know of any who allow >> the user base to vote on project infrastructure) >> >> David Lang >> >>> I also get the feeling more and more that the split was perfectly >>> justified, probably there’s a bit too much ego involved. >>> What is the use of a project in the Public interest, when the targeted >>> audience is not involved in the process? >>> This is exactly where the LEDE project did better than OpenWRT. >>> >>> With kind regards, >>> Edwin van Drunen >>> >>>> On 12 May 2017, at 13:09, David Lang <da...@lang.hm> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Daniel Golle wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Edwin, >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:02:36AM +0200, Edwin van Drunen wrote: >>>>>> As a long time user of OpenWRT and recent “LEDE convert” I would also >>>>>> like to chime in on the naming and branding of the post-merge project. >>>>>> My employer and several of my industrial clients have used OpenWRT/LEDE >>>>>> extensively over the past few years in many projects, ranging from >>>>>> routers and access points to embedded servers and industrial controllers. >>>>>> It was the small footprint combined with the versatility of the platform >>>>>> that made it work and the availability of generic pre-built images for >>>>>> many platforms and documentation that made it a success. >>>>>> But despite the great track record of the system, there was always a bit >>>>>> of a “hobbyist” feel that the OpenWRT name brought with it and a sense >>>>>> of unprofessionalism being perceived by management and some end users. >>>>>> Most likely this is because the name OpenWRT is strongly related to >>>>>> “hacking" consumer routers (WRT54GL etc.) and the 90’s style website >>>>>> also didn’t help. >>>>>> When LEDE was forked and presented as a more multi-purpose embedded >>>>>> linux, came with new releases quickly and with a more modern website and >>>>>> interface to code and documentation, the switch was easily made. >>>>>> Not having WRT in the name, implying it would be for wireless routers, >>>>>> but instead using the broad term “development environment” was helping >>>>>> to better describe what the platform is and give it a more professional >>>>>> sound. >>>>>> With the new name the platform was now seen as a professional piece of >>>>>> infrastructure. >>>>> >>>>> This quite matches the experience I've made when presenting the LEDE >>>>> fork... >>>>> >>>>>> In my opinion LEDE perfectly describes the combination of OpenWRT’s >>>>>> version of the buildroot system, the set of patches and the Luci >>>>>> interface: >>>>>> The entire development environment that is needed to build a generic >>>>>> bootable image and software packages from source for almost any >>>>>> platform, with matching pre-built SDK’s and image builders. >>>>>> OpenWRT better describes the wide range of specific system images built >>>>>> for COTS products (which are mostly wireless routers) and is a more >>>>>> suitable name for a final “product". >>>>>> You should consider maintaining the LEDE name or somehow differentiatie >>>>>> between the “development environment” and the "final product". >>>>> >>>>> I strongly agree here as well, I believe the "LEDE" project could >>>>> release an "OpenWrt" product in reasonable time intervals and that >>>>> should be targetting home routers and similar embedded systems. >>>> >>>> I'm pretty sure the ship has sailed on that approach, being rejected by >>>> the current openwrt devs last year. >>>> >>>> remember that a vote has been held already on the naming scheme. There was >>>> near universal agreement that a remerge should happen, and a slight >>>> majority that the result should be named openwrt. it doesn't do anyone any >>>> good to keep arguing points that have been agreed on. >>>> >>>> David Lang >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Lede-dev mailing list > Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev > _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
