Revising OpenWrt Rules

[Vincenzo Romano]

I fully agree with this view, for what it's worth.
The aim of the project is, more or less, to deliver better and open OS
for routers and similar devices.

Adding something that either doesn't add extra value to the project or
that adds extra burden to the devs is just useless if not damaging.
Of course we all love democracy. But that's not in the scope of the
OpenWRT project.

--
Vincenzo Romano - NotOrAnd.IT
Information Technologies
--
NON QVIETIS MARIBVS NAVTA PERITVS
ΟΥΚ ΕΠΙ ΑΚΥΜΟΝΑΙΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΑΙΣ ΠΛΟΤΙΚΟΣ ΝΑYΤΗΣ ΓΙΓΝΕΤΑΙ


On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 3:22 PM Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello. Let me try to put in other way what I am trying to say.
>
> Differently from what some may think OpenWrt is not a public
> institution, doesn't have something as a General Assembly and doesn't
> necessarily need to make everything to be public.
> The most important thing is that decisionmakers, the main actors who
> make the project to continue existing are fine with the way things are
> been done. Otherwise they would start to feel discouraged and project
> would fail. As long there is never something hidden between the
> decisonmakers that's a great thing.
>
> Willing to make publicity absolute in my view is just political
> correctness that doesn't ad up much to the project.
>
> The text saying all decisions should be public is good enough in my view
> and leave up to the decisionmakers to decide which ones the discussion
> should be treated differently.
>
> Regards
> Fernando
>
> On 05/10/2020 06:55, Paul Oranje wrote:
> >
> >> Op 4 okt. 2020, om 23:57 heeft Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >>
> >> Nobody is going to judge in his own cause. I mentioned when having to take a decision about another decision maker for example, that involves other people or other institution with who the project may have some agreement.
> >>
> >> Transparency is good but that must not be absolute. There are occasions where discussions may not be help in public due to sensitive matters. Yes fairness comes before and that can be achieved the either way.
> >> The ones who matters most in this context are the own decisionmakers and they will be involved in that.
> > Making decisions in public does not preclude respecting the sensitivity of certain matters, e.g. when positions of people are concerned, or handling security issues. For cases as those necessarily information is only shared once appropiate, but outside such special cases the general principle should be: in public.
> >
> >> The same way decisionmakers have the trust to make decisions on behalf of the project they have to decide which subjects may be treated exceptionally in this way. This helps to protect the project long term.
> >>
> >> Fernando
> >>
> >> On 04/10/2020 18:35, Sam Kuper wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Oct 04, 2020 at 03:50:18PM -0300, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> >>>> I do not agree all decisions need to be made *in* public. This is
> >>>> different from all decisions be made public which I agree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sometimes there are though decisions to be taken by the decisionmakers
> >>>> and that may be related to other decisionmaker, other people or
> >>>> institutions and it may contain very sensitive information to be
> >>>> disclosed publicly, so why not always is good it to be made in public.
> >>> I feel I addressed this in my original email (see relevant excerpt
> >>> below).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There is a fair amount of trusted people to the project with different
> >>>> point of views. I think is fair to understand they will take the right
> >>>> decisions for the project even if it has to be decided in a more
> >>>> restrict event due to the sensitive information under discussion.
> >>> There is a principle in law: "no-one is judge in his own cause", or
> >>> "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done."
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_iudex_in_causa_sua
> >>>
> >>> The point is: transparency matters.  Transparency is how trust is won,
> >>> opacity is how dubious decisions get made and trust gets lost.
> >>>
> >>> It's great if the decisionmakers are already trustworthy.  Requiring
> >>> decisions to be made (or at least ratified) transparently will help to
> >>> keep them that way.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:52:45PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> >>>> This would mean that if some OpenWRT decisionmakers were to discuss an
> >>>> upcoming decision in a private setting (over coffee at a conference,
> >>>> or in a private email conversation, or whatever), then they would not
> >>>> be able to ratify the decision in that discussion.  They would need to
> >>>> subsequently propose the decision in the relevant public forum (e.g. a
> >>>> publicly-accessible OpenWRT mailing list) for scrutiny and
> >>>> ratification.
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Sam
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> openwrt-adm mailing list
> >> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> >> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm
>
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm