openwrt and lede - remerge proposal

[Jo-Philipp Wich]

Hi,

> I don't see any priority defined here. Putting every egg in the same
> basked on the other hand isn't always a good idea.

sure, no argument on that.

> We could rephrase it like unify downloads.* & co.

OK. The directory structure is different so it cannot be easily mapped
using DNS only while keeping backwards compatibility with opkg.

There likely needs to be rewrite rules to map legacy resources to other
locations.

> Before the merge non-OpenWrt people are outsiders from both SPI's and
> the world's PoV. After the merge everyone can vote on these topics.

And at which point are people considered "insiders" from the SPI's PoV?

What is the formal definition of a successful remerge here? A joint
statement from the mailing list? A notice from the current SPI liaison?

>>> *) github
>>> - stop pushing to lede-project organisation
>>
>> Why?
> 
> Because we're going forward as a single project.

Which does not prevent automatic mirroring.

>>> - start pushing to the openwrt organisation
>>
>> By force-overwriting the history of openwrt/openwrt ?
> 
> No one said it won't cause a bit of pain, but would ease the transition
> on the long run.

Keep pushing to the lede-project organisation as a mirror also eases the
transition.

>>> - cleanup the list of owners in the openwrt organisation
>>
>> What kind of cleanup is meant here?
> 
> John likely meant to review who's active and who isn't.

Ok.

>>> - update the landing page to have the same look & feel as the current
>>> openwrt landing page
>>
>> Why?
> 
> Well, we're not wikipedia so it doesn't hurt if the site has at least
> some CSS ;)

There is CSS. The current OpenWrt frontpage design is rather bulky and
partially broken (bad list margins) so we probably should not use it
as-is either.

>> Can be done while scripting the mirror process.
> 
> That's the plan. For the interim period (given trac just dies randomly,
> so you have to be gentle while mirroring) we need the template change as
> John wrote.

OK.

>> According to the rules there shall be no personal mail accounts at all.
>> There should be plenty of time until the actual remerge to fade them out
>> and to set up forwarding elsewhere.
> 
> I hope you agree that a merge means both sides are adopting and need to
> find some common ground.
> 
> Some of the rules has to change, and as we've discussed it with John,
> one might want to send upstream submissions to make OpenWrt show up
> there like other projects do. You might also want to open a private
> conversation between the upstream platform / driver maintainer where
> having a project email address could be useful. Personally I only use my
> owrt address for FOSS related stuff and as far as I know, most people do
> the same.

I do not know what was discussed in detail here but I am strongly
against personal project email addresses for outgoing communication.

In my opinion a personal contribution record should stand for itself and
leveraging *@openwrt.org sender credibility to get stuff accepted which
would otherwise get rejected leaves a bad taste.

Doing that would encourage people to try to get part of the project
solely to take advantage of the added credibility as "door opener". IMHO
this might cause envy and discontent among the contributor base.

Personally I would have no problem adding inbound mail redirects for
those few personal mail accounts that still exist but these redirects
should merely forward to personal non-project mailboxes.

> LEDE has a rule which says: "Committers being unreachable for three
> months in a row shall get their commit and voting rights revoked in
> order to retain the ability to do majority votes among the remaining
> active committers." This rule is clearly problematic if you would like
> to extend voting rights to non-coders which I believe we want to do.
> Someone maintaining the wiki or the forums might never commit anything,
> but we do want to get their opinion heard. In the past we didn't make it
> easy for the community to interfere with decisions, I doubt we want to
> make the same mistake again.

Not sure how it relates to the email question but "committers" can be
redefined as "participants", "contributors" or "members". The rest of
the wording does not rule out non-committing participation. Note that it
states "unreachable" and not "not committing".

>> Is there any personal mail sent from @openwrt.org at all? As far as I
>> understood, only administrative stuff (subscriptions, ...) will be sent
>> from this domain; the rest can be nailed down with SPF records.
> 
> See above.

OK.

>>> *) trademark/sponsorship policy
>>> - review/ack imres trademark policy
>>> - review/ack jows sponsorship policy
>>
>> I am not aware of any personal sponsorship policy, what is meant here?
> 
> We thought you are preparing a sponsorship policy draft we should vote
> about.

Ah ok. I will work on summarizing the raised points then.



Regards,
Jo


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20170510/f7789c38/attachment-0001.sig>