On 05/12/2017 07:02 AM, Paul Oranje wrote: > Dear David, dear community, > Please, see my comments below in-line. > With the highest esteem, > Paul > >> Op 12 mei 2017, om 02:04 heeft David Lang <da...@lang.hm> het volgende >> geschreven: >> >> 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. > True, unneeded efforts are a waist. But when the existing relation of OpenWrt > with SPI brings privileges for those that currently hold a position in > OpenWrt, then it may be prudent to consider the odds.
I am fairly sure that everyone in the LEDE development team realizes that, but thanks for making it crystal clear. > >> >>>>>>>> - 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? > Why would the OpenWrt repo be re-animated ? Because the re-merge proposal indicates that the name OpenWrt would be used again as a name for the larger project. It's all about trying to be consistent, as much as possible. > New commits are push onto LEDE and OpenWrt will just not accept any new > commits and remain in its current state. This scenario would not bring any > disadvantages, would it ? The idea, as I understand it is: - make the *current* openwrt/master become openwrt/legacy (or whatever name, we can also run a poll to choose branch names, just kidding) - make the *current* lede/master become openwrt/master > Personally it doesn't matter much, the opinion of most active devs should, of > coarse, be regarded more relevant. It does not matter, but here you are being vocal about it anyway, so surely, it does matter to you, let's admit it? > >> >> >>> 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). > Redirection of __all__ @openwrt mail addresses to appropriate mailing lists > seems practical and reasonable and would prevent unwanted personal privileges. So that will include spam, and possibly other stuff that are right now in the domain of private communications into something that should be now be public according to you? There is a before and after, and the difficulty is exactly in defining when this before and after will. I don't think that mails sent to flor...@openwrt.org should be made into a mailing-list, but by the same token, I am making sure that this email is not used anywhere anymore such that if it has, it would be easy to make it happen and I would be comfortable with that. What you are suggesting though is closer to the Spanish inquisition than something helpful unless I misunderstood what "all" encompasses? > >> 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. > That the LEDE devs do not want @opentwrt.org addresses seems not to be a > personal preference, but a well weighted policy to avoid that such addresses > would be used for unwanted purposes. > >> 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. > You are right that I question some ideas - I’m not upset - that would not > directly have personal consequences for me. But this discussion is precisely > about the policies and rules of the project at large, not about some personal > preference. > I do read some criticism to this mingling-in and since it absolutely is not > my aim to provoke such discussions, I will refrain from actively taking part > in this discussion unless it is made clear that such contributions are > appreciated (or when I am really upset, but that would be unlikely). If you are genuinely thinking what you are writing here, then I am sorry to say that to you, but your past emails can be read (that's how I initially did) as being neither constructive nor helpful. > >>>> 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. > First, the above commented quote is of Imre’s writing. But anyhow, the point > I tried to make and which Imre commented, is that intentions serve well a > flexible application of a rule, and that presumed inflexibility of a rule > should not do away with the intentions of that rule. > Besides, but I could be wrong on that, I thought that in the discussions on a > merge the assumption was that the LEDE rules were supposed to sustain. That > should not make discussion on the rules impossible, but discussions that > question the intentions, the ideas behind the rules, obviously are more > likely to make more waves. > >> It almost sounds like you are trolling to stir up trouble where the >> principals in the negotiation have not been disagreeing significantly. > I would be very sorry if that would be the effect. I’ll take this as a > warning to be careful. It’s okay to warn me of this. I read *a lot* of judgment of intentions in your email that I personally read as simply adding more fuel to a fire that should by now, be completely extinguished, and as nature shows, should be used as a much more fertile ground to grow something better on. So let's just make it happen :) -- Florian _______________________________________________ Lede-dev mailing list Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
