[OpenWrt-Devel] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software Support Program - initial draft

xxiao8 xxiao8 at fosiao.com
Wed Mar 9 19:23:38 EST 2016

I would expect prpl had lots of discussion with Openwrt core developers 
already before this. It appears that did not happen.

Intel funded the core developers for Yocto(x86), Linaro gets money from 
ARM(arm), now it seems prpl is trying to better some ecosystem for mips 
via Openwrt.

IMHO, prpl either does something major(full and open community 
involvement, much more financial sponsorship,etc), or sponsor a few 
sub-projects initially to earn a name for itself before anything major.

Openwrt in the IoT days in my opinion should be put under Linux Foundation.


On 03/09/2016 03:11 PM, openwrt-devel-request at lists.openwrt.org wrote:
> Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software
> 	Support Program - initial draft
> Message-ID:<56E09167.3000804 at openwrt.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On 2016-03-09 17:46, Kathy Giori wrote:
>> >Saverio and all,
>> >
>> >Let me offer a few thoughts, since I've been involved in prpl since
>> >the beginning, and you can either praise (preferred) or blame me for
>> >initiating the prplwrt PEG. :)
>> >
>> >My initial goal was simple -- improved industry-community
>> >collaboration. But my secondary goal, assuming trust relationships
>> >would be established, had also been the idea of funding OpenWrt
>> >developers via prpl. Why not industry direct? Partly not to skew the
>> >project toward one specific vendor, but also because industry-direct
>> >funding to individual developers, or even professional services
>> >companies out of country of the funder, can be problematic
>> >(logistically/legally). I lived through some painful attempts.
> I do agree that keeping things neutral and not skewing a project towards
> one particular vendor is important. However, there's one critical aspect
> that in my opinion is still very dysfunctional with prpl trying to act
> as a middle man here: communication.
> Some of us (especially John) have repeatedly attempted to get some
> information on what the bigger OpenWrt users among the corporate prpl
> members actually need. What are their issues with OpenWrt, what are
> their requirements for useful features, etc. Maybe some information on
> how they're actually using OpenWrt. In some ways that can be even more
> important than having a neutral channel for funding.
> To this day I don't know if there is some strategic communication going
> on about this inside prpl that is just not communicated to us, or if the
> prpl members simply don't bother to talk about this stuff and only drop
> off some buzzword lists of high level things they wish for, without
> actually bothering to go into specific details.
> I've heard rumors leaning towards one or the other side, but I don't
> know much about what's actually going on behind the scenes.
>> >It is wasteful to see industry re-invent the wheel in
>> >custom/proprietary or even open source ways, when there are FOSS
>> >solutions to a problem. Sometimes industry isn't aware (shame for not
>> >looking harder), but often they worry about lack of "control". If prpl
>> >could establish the means to collaborate effectively, then we can
>> >discourage industry from either being completely redundant, or from
>> >forking FOSS projects such as OpenWrt (and direct kernel hacks) into
>> >hard-to-maintain dead ends.
> I think for prpl to be able to help here, a lot more transparency in
> communication is needed. I did not find the kind of strategic discussion
> required for that kind of collaboration in the prpl sync calls I
> attended either. From my superficial review of the meeting notes, it
> seems that this is just not the place for it.
>> >And finally, I'm hoping that prpl will help raise OpenWrt developer
>> >voices, to bring your valuable insight to be heard by industry.
>> >Especially important is the need for upstream Linux kernel development
>> >(all BSP and kernel driver support). Also important is "giving back",
>> >making submissions directly to OpenWrt trunk (or a staging branch if
>> >not ready for trunk). In other words, in addition to upstreaming,
>> >silicon vendor SDK support on top of OpenWrt should be
>> >pushed/integrated with OpenWrt as much as possible.
> I think plenty of OpenWrt developers already frequently raise their
> voices. What's needed is for the industry to not just listen, but also
> to communicate back. For that to be effective, we need to be sure that
> any useful feedback isn't being drowned out by a miscalibrated filter ;)
> - Felix
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list