Update OpenWrt rules

Mon Sep 15 12:56:08 PDT 2025

Our messages crossed in the aether... I incorporated Hauke's comments and updated the proposal to address your point #1 earlier this morning. See: https://github.com/richb-hanover/OpenWrtRules/blob/main/OpenWrt%20Rules.md

re: tying commit privileges to voting participation... I think this is a good thing - a healthy project needs code commits, but it also requires people to look at a project overview.

The major justification for these rule changes is so that we can reach a quorum for votes. We are close to not having enough people to *make* changes under the current rules: several committers are no longer engaged with the project, so we would have trouble getting a sufficient number of votes. These rules give us a mechanism for pruning the "active member" list (the "voters") to retain a quorum.

Thanks.

Rich

PS: Hauke asked us all to respond via this email address openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org <mailto:openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org> so that the archives will capture the discussion: https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/2025-September/thread.html 

> On Sep 15, 2025, at 14:36, Adrian Schmutzler <mail at adrianschmutzler.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Hauke,
> 
> thank you for this proposal, I think it is a large step forward.
> 
> Two suggestions:
> 
> 1. I would move the point "Frequent contributors may become members ..." to the section "Membership", since it is not specifically about voting, but about membership in general.
> 
> 2. Regarding revoking of commit credentials: I wonder whether we should state "The commit credentials of inactive members are revoked" as a definite rule. With this wording, removing commit rights would be mandatory for anybody becoming inactive and hence might create extra work for the relevant admins without an apparent benefit.
> My experience is that members have used their commit rights responsibly so far. I'm not aware that the currently (informally) "inactive" members like myself have caused any harm with their still existing commit rights. Others have asked on their own account to have their rights removed or never asked to get them in the first place when doing other jobs.
> Hence, I suggest to either weaken the statement ("credentials of inactive members may/should/might be revoked (on request)") or remove it entirely. I do not think we need to more closely define something here that has not been a problem so far (as far as I've been aware).
> 
> Best
> 
> Adrian
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke at hauke-m.de>
>> Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 8:21 PM
>> To: Paul Spooren <mail at aparcar.org>; Ted Hess <owrt at kitschensync.net>;
>> Imre Kaloz <kaloz at dune.hu>; Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski at gmail.com>; Petr
>> Štetiar <ynezz at true.cz>; Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>; Ansuel Smith
>> <ansuelsmth at gmail.com>; Stijn Tintel <stijn at linux-ipv6.be>; Thomas Endt
>> <tmo26 at gmx.de>; Hans Dedecker <dedeckeh at gmail.com>; John Crispin
>> <john at phrozen.org>; Mirko Vogt <mirko-openwrt at nanl.de>; Chuanhong
>> Guo <gch981213 at gmail.com>; David Bauer <mail at david-bauer.net>; Kevin
>> 'ldir' Darbyshire-Bryant <ldir at darbyshire-bryant.me.uk>; Yousong Zhou
>> <yszhou4tech at gmail.com>; Alexander 'lynxis' Couzens <lynxis at fe80.eu>;
>> Baptiste Jonglez <baptiste at bitsofnetworks.org>; Zoltan Herpai
>> <wigyori at uid0.hu>; Steven Barth <steven.barth at outlook.com>; David
>> Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org>; Rich Brown
>> <richb.hanover at gmail.com>; Koen Vandeputte
>> <koen.vandeputte at citymesh.com>; Robert Marko <robimarko at gmail.com>;
>> Adrian Schmutzler <freifunk at adrianschmutzler.de>; Jo-Philipp Wich
>> <jo at mein.io>; Mathias Kresin <dev at kresin.me>; Christian Lamparter
>> <chunkeey at gmail.com>; Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli at gmail.com>; Felix Fietkau
>> <nbd at nbd.name>; Sungbo Eo <mans0n at gorani.run>; Ted Hess
>> <thess at kitschensync.net>; Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>;
>> Sander Vanheule <sander at svanheule.net>; Alberto Bursi
>> <bobafetthotmail at gmail.com>; Daniel Golle <daniel at makrotopia.org>; Rui
>> Salvaterra <rsalvaterra at gmail.com>; Piotr Dymacz <pepe2k at gmail.com>;
>> Matthias Schiffer <mschiffer at universe-factory.net>; Luka Perkov
>> <luka.perkov at sartura.hr>
>> Subject: Re: Update OpenWrt rules
>> 
>> Hi OpenWrt committers,
>> 
>> <Please answer on the mailing list>
>> 
>> we have problems getting any votes done in the OpenWrt project. To fix this
>> problem we would like to update the rules to reduce the quorum and do some
>> other changes to membership.
>> 
>> Please read the current proposed rules and comment if you see there any
>> problem or have any improvement. Preferable answer on the mailing list.
>> https://github.com/hauke/OpenWrtRules/blob/main/OpenWrt%20Rules.md
>> 
>> I would like to start the vote on this in 2 weeks and do not want to do any
>> changes any more after the vote started.
>> 
>> Hauke
>> 
>> On 9/14/25 20:13, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We are working since some time to update the OpeWrt rules to fix the
>>> voting problem we have with the current rules.
>>> 
>>> The current rules are on our website:
>>> https://openwrt.org/rules
>>> 
>>> Here is the in development rule proposal:
>>> 
>> https://github.com/hauke/OpenWrtRules/blob/main/OpenWrt%20Rules.md
>>> 
>>> Please read the new rule proposal and mention any concerns you have
>>> here or as a PR to the repository.
>>> 
>>> We would like to start a vote on this in two weeks and it would be
>>> very annoying if we start a discussion about some changes then,
>>> because it is not easy to get the two third majority.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hauke
>>> 
>>> Current proposal:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>> # Proposed OpenWrt Rules - June 2025
>>> 
>>> _[Compare to the current [OpenWrt Rules](https://openwrt.org/rules)]_
>>> 
>>> _**Membership**_
>>> 
>>> * The roles within the OpenWrt project are:
>>>   active members, inactive members, and non-members.
>>>   There is no core developer group or any other
>>>   group of specially privileged members.
>>> * Members may voluntarily switch between active and inactive status at
>>>   any time.
>>> * If a member appears not to be participating in project matters,
>>>   any active member may request that the non-participating
>>>   member switch to inactive status.
>>>   This request must be sent by email to the person concerned,
>>>   with the openwrt-adm mailing list in CC.
>>>   If the person either agrees or does not respond within 30 days,
>>>   they will be moved to inactive status.
>>> 
>>> _**Commit access**_
>>> 
>>> * Active members can request commit access to all repositories.
>>> * The commit credentials of inactive members are revoked.
>>>   They will be restored upon their return to active status.
>>> 
>>> _**Voting**_
>>> 
>>> * All active members have the right to vote and are encouraged
>>>   to liberally exercise this voting right in order to
>>>   maintain a broad consensus on project matters.
>>> * To propose changes to project matters or the overall development
>>>   direction, a formal proposal must be sent to the openwrt-adm
>>> mailing
>>>   list.
>>>   The proposal must clearly describe the suggested changes
>>>   and include a specific deadline for when the voting period will end.
>>>   A simple approval is required.
>>> * All active members who voted in the past 6 months before the new
>>> vote
>>>   was started are considered active voters. If less than 3 votes
>>>   occurred in the past 6 months the last 3 votes are considered to
>>>   determine the active voters.
>>> * For a simple approval, the proposal must achieve a two-thirds
>>> majority
>>>   among the active members who participate in the vote.
>>>   Additionally, it must receive approval from at least 50% of the
>>> active
>>>   voters, regardless of whether they participated in the vote.
>>> * For a change to these rules, a 75% majority among the active members
>>>   who participate in the vote must approve,
>>>   as well as 50% approval from the active voters.
>>> * Neutral votes are considered half-approvals.
>>> * Frequent contributors may become members after a simple approval.
>>>   Project members are free to suggest suitable candidates.
>>> * Any votes and decisions will be made public on the project website.
>>> 
>>> _**Infrastructure**_
>>> 
>>> * Project infrastructure should be outsourced to FOSS community
>>> operated
>>>   services whenever possible in order to allow members
>>>   to focus on actual development efforts.
>>> * Any infrastructure that is operated by the project
>>>   itself shall be administered by at least three different people
>>>   to reduce the likelihood of the project getting locked out
>>>   due to administrators being unreachable.
>>> * Responsible administrators for the various services shall be
>>>   documented publicly.
>>> 
>>> _**Other rules**_
>>> 
>>> * The project will not offer individual email accounts
>>>   under its project domain for privacy and equality reasons.
>>> * Be nice to each other (formerly known as "Rule 12")
> 