mbm schrieb am 05.05.2016 um 21:22: > On 5/5/2016 7:40 AM, Felix Fietkau wrote: >> Many of the changes that we previously tried to introduce were often >> squashed by internal disagreements. Resulting discussions often turned >> toxic quickly and led to nothing being done to address the issues. >> Setting up the LEDE project was our way of creating a testbed for >> changes that we believe are important for the survival of the project. > > Change is not easy. Discussions need to happen. The problem is simply > kicking out people you didn't agree with by starting a new organization > in secret; you've created the public perception that we're somehow > against you when really we all want the same things. > >> A critical part of many of these debates was the fact that people who >> were controlling critical pieces of the infrastructure flat out >> refused to allow other people to step up and help, even in the face of >> being unable to deal with important issues themselves in a timely >> manner. This kind of single-point-of-failure thing has been going on >> for years, with no significant progress on resolving it. In the LEDE >> project we decided to significantly simplify the infrastructure and >> spread out admin access enough to minimize the chance of this >> situation ever happening again. >> While we have pushed for and actively worked on decentralizing the >> infrastructure, we were also frequently asked to move back to >> centralizing things again. >> The excessive downtime of the main site this year is a good example of >> why we definitely don't want to go that way. > > I'll let Kaloz address this personally. > >> Do you think we can get the changes outlined by the LEDE project >> implement in OpenWrt? If so, how? > > We can start by having an actual conversation between the two groups. > I'm not against what LEDE was trying to accomplish, but I am against how > it was done. > >> We appreciate your effort to have an open discussion about this, >> however the sudden deletion of our widely published openwrt.org email >> addresses somewhat undermines this. We will not respond in kind and we >> will continue to maintain the critical parts of OpenWrt infrastructure >> that we control. > > Let's be clear on this subject; no commit access was revoked, you still > have full read and write access to the entire OpenWrt tree. > > Email forwarding was temporarily disabled following the LEDE announcement > - LEDE's own rules prohibit project based email addresses > - It's unclear if LEDE still represents OpenWrt >
Disabling someone's email-account without prior notice and a decent time frame just because you don't agree with that persons behavior is totally immature and inappropriate. The 'excuse' pointed out here just demonstrates this ridiculousness. Just my 2 cents. Hartmut > My hope is that this whole LEDE vs OpenWrt situation can be resolved. > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel >
0xFAC89148.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
