State of the Union

Hauke Mehrtens hauke at
Tue Feb 28 18:21:19 EST 2017

On 02/27/2017 06:00 PM, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote:

Thanks Imre for sending the mail and reaching out to Mike about the
domain name.

Thank you Jow for sending this mail with the options. I do not think
that the "LEDE side" has a common option on all these topics so I will
add mine here. Please write if you do not agree with me and present an
other option.

> Before we schedule another meeting you should prepare a detailed agenda
> first to allow us to concentrate on the actual decision making.
> Some points that require agreements and resolutions are:
> 1) Website
>   a) Keep separate pages or merge them?
>   b) Who is taking care of hosting?
>   c) Who is taking care of the domain?
>   d) ...

I like that the Website is integrated with the Wiki and someone else
takes care. I would prefer to take the LEDE website and show it under
both domain names.

> 2) Forum
>   a) Discourse or punBB?
>   b) What is speaking about having both?
>   c) ...

I would suggest to make a poll in both forums for which forum software
to continue to use. I am not a big forum user and the users should device.

> 3) Wiki
>   a) Complete LEDE wiki with OpenWrt information?
>   b) Complete OpenWrt wiki with LEDE information?
>   c) Redirect one to the other or keep both? (Mind that LEDE uses its
>      wiki as main web presence)

I would like to have one wiki with the content of both merged together.
I do not care which to take as a base, let the people how take care of
the wiki device what is easier to do.

> 4) Who is doing the legal paperwork, SPI etc.
>   a) Who is volunteering?
>   b) What are the requirements?
>   c) ...

I would like to be represented by the SPI. I no one else wants to do
this I would step up. I think we should have at least 3 people
representing us at the SPI. I would use the SPI only to collect
donations and to give legal advice if needed. If we merge we can take
over the OpenWrt account. ;-)

> 5) Communication
>   a) Preparing a joint statement?
>   b) Who is moderating the remerge process?
>   c) Who keeps track of the merge process?
>   d) ...

6) build bot infrastructure
 a) run the LEDE build bots on the OpenWrt servers in addition.
 b) have both build instances
 c) ....

I would prefer to put the OpenWrt computing resources under the control
of the LEDE build master.

> --
> I can not speak on behalf of other community members but here's a few
> personal thoughts and questions:
>  - Imho there is not much worth in keeping the OpenWrt source tree
>    around. We can merge the outstanding changes to Chaos Calmer since
>    the founding of LEDE into the Chaos Calmer branch on git.lede-
> (but we have to figure out how to deal with the
>    rewritten history) and pick the few relevant changes from OpenWrt
>    master into the LEDE master branch.

I agree with that.
I would suggest to rebase the CC from OpenWrt on top of the CC form LEDE.

I think it was agreed on that we would take the LEDE codebase and the
patches which are not in LEDE but in OpenWrt should be added manually.

>  - I am still unclear about what project I would be actually merging
>    with. By now all former and active OpenWrt developers should have
>    (or easily can get) push access to source.git but there has been
>    very little contributions from the "OpenWrt side" in both the
>    OpenWrt or LEDE repositories. Can we expect some actual effort from
>    the "OpenWrt side" in the future or will things quickly fall back
>    into a pattern where a few people having * mail
>    addresses are claiming to represent the project while the actual
>    development work and (non-industrial) community interaction is done
>    by others?

What about having a chart with the people ordered by number of commits
in the last year, so that outsiders have an easy way to tell who
contributes and who not?
Number of commits is not a good way, but I can not some up with a better

>  - For me the LEDE arrangement currently works well and so far I see
>    nothing I would personally gain from re-merging with OpenWrt as a
>    project or OpenWrt as defined by its infrastructure. Strictly
>    speaking it would only incur work and, with no good plan for the
>    merger in place, delays and confusion as well as tied up resources
>    better spent in release engineering and bug fixing.

The OpenWrt name is interesting for me. When you talk to normal users
many do not know LEDE, but they know what OpenWrt is, same is true for
industry. The developers that really contribute mostly moved to LEDE
already. I think it is similar to OpenOffice and LibreOffice.

> --
> The only viable way I *personally* see is letting all LEDE and OpenWrt
> developers participate in LEDE, redirect OpenWrt to LEDE and start
> shaping the common project within the laid out rules to address the
> majorities view on how things should work. Then we can start thinking
> about renaming LEDE back to OpenWrt together.
> Regards,
> Jo


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 858 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the openwrt-adm mailing list