On Wed, 2016-05-25 at 01:13 -0700, mbm wrote: > > [snip] > > Let's see if any of the remaining OpenWrt devs at least publicly support > > adopting them or some variation of them. As I've said before my > > impression is that LEDE-style rules are not all that welcomed (and > > that's based on the interactions I saw on the private openwrt channels > > when I was a developer, not just a pure outsider view; it's possible my > > impression is wrong, but the toxicity described previously was in large > > part negative reaction by folkds in the LEDE team to toxic comments from > > at least one of the remaining OpenWrt devs; certainly it damaged my > > opinion of him (although the toxicity also damaged my opinion of a > > couple of LEDE folks too)). > Sigh... > > It's not as if LEDE offered the changes to OpenWrt and we voted > against them causing a split -- there was literally no discussion and > no warning prior to the public announcement. LEDE just suddenly > existed and the story quickly became that the reason for their > existence was because OpenWrt somehow prevented them from making > changes. At no point did OpenWrt veto changes or even have the option > to; the truth is that we agree changes need to be made. By not
I guess part of the problem is that the LEDE team didn't believe that changes would actually be possible, because the toxic way in certain members interacted made reasonable discussion impossible (this is not a one-sided thing either IMO). Certain if transparency and greater community participation, and more opportunities for new blood to join, were adopted by OpenWrt, and a reasonable set of rules (i.e. not necessarily LEDE's rules) regarding who makes the decisions (e.g. I'm not sure I entirely buy LEDE's only committers should vote, if the goal is truly a greater community voice, although if committers are the only ones voting then I agree that it should be active committers, not just anyone who was at one time active; I think a notion of activity should include measure other that commits, however (I don't buy that the only thing that matters in an open source project is code commits)) Also a number of the other rules make sense, although I don't see that merger means that LEDE rules should necessarily be adopted as-is with no discussion. > including OpenWrt in the discussions LEDE ran afoul of their own > transparency leading to the false impression that OpenWrt was somehow > against the changes, causing a split in the community in terms of LEDE > vs OpenWrt with various amounts of hostility on the mailing lists. > None of this is healthy or constructive. That is largely my fault for expression my impressions that I had because of the toxic interactions between developers when I was on the private channel. I apologize for that, for all the good it will do (I don't know as there is anything I can do now to fix that). I would submit, however, that a solution to the toxicity is essential to any merger. Part of the reason I stepped down is that I wasn't helping matters because of personal issues (and have done it again more publicly now). I can't fix that, but I *can* point out that the the environment that creates this situation needs to be fixed. > > Let me be very clear: nobody on the OpenWrt side is against the > changes LEDE is trying to make. It is our position that this whole > thing is a misunderstanding and that the projects should attempt to > merge again. I have been trying to arrange talks between the two sides > but between work schedules, timezone conflicts and FUD regarding the > split it's been very difficult. > I would very much like to see openwrt and lede merge, but I know I'm not the calm voice that can make that happen. You and Hauke (for example) may be the calm heads that could make this happen, although it takes the more headstrong ones being willing to listen to you. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
