On 24/05/17 10:13, Paul Oranje wrote:
Who are/will be entitled to an [IRC] project cloak ?
Paul
people with voting rights and probably also regular contributors ...
that is however unrelated to the remerge discussion and would fall under
the normal voting system
Op 22 mei 2017, om 19:11
On 23/05/17 22:42, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
On 05/22/2017 09:40 AM, John Crispin wrote:
Hi,
here is a V2 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
people made into it, if anything is missing let me know.
John
.
*) SPI
- nominate a new liaison team (imre and john
On 05/22/2017 09:40 AM, John Crispin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here is a V2 of the remerge proposal, I tried to fold all the comments
> people made into it, if anything is missing let me know.
>
>
> John
.
> *) SPI
> - nominate a new liaison team (imre and john offer to do this, if anyone
>
Hi,
On 2017-05-22 03:10, John Crispin wrote:
On 22/05/17 11:02, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 05/22/2017 09:40 AM, John Crispin wrote:
*) branding
- the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
- a (minor) majority voted for openwrt as a name over lede whilst
most people said they did not
John Crispin writes:
> the lede rules that will become the new owrt rules.
You may want to mention this fact in the merge proposal itself. What
would happen to the rules was one of the points that was unclear in the
first round, I believe... :)
-Toke
On 22/05/17 11:39, Vincenzo Romano wrote:
I also agree to everything.
With am extra point.
2017-05-22 11:18 GMT+02:00 tapper :
*) SPI
- nominate a new liaison team (imre and john offer to do this, if anyone
else is interested let us know)
- inform SPI of the new liaisons, voters and project r
On 22/05/17 11:02, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
On 05/22/2017 09:40 AM, John Crispin wrote:
*) branding
- the owrt side sees no option of using the lede brand
- a (minor) majority voted for openwrt as a name over lede whilst
most people said they did not care
- as the last vote had a 100% ACK for a r
