[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[David Woodhouse]

On Thu, 2025-10-23 at 21:40 +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I propose to replace the current OpenWrt rules to the below version.
> This is an official vote. The vote should conclude on 27th November 2025.
> 
> These are the old rules: https://openwrt.org/rules
> 
> This vote follows the old rules. It needs a two third approval rate 
> among all OpenWrt project members to get accepted.
> 
> 
> Voting page: https://openwrt.org/voting/2025-10-23-rule-update
> 
> Hauke

Thanks for driving this. I'm generally in favour but have a small
amount of nitpicking to do...

> ----------
> # Proposed OpenWrt Rules - June 2025
> 
> _**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.
> * Frequent contributors may become members after a simple approval.
>    Project members are free to propose suitable candidates.
> 
> _**Commit access**_
> 
> * Active members can request commit access to all repositories.
> * The commit credentials of inactive members can be 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 participate in the new vote or 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
        ^^^^
        fewer
       
>    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.

I'm not quite sure how the maths works here. This "neutral vote" means
an explicit "+0" vote from someone who is actively abstaining (rather
than merely not voting)?

And it literally counts as 0.5 of a vote towards both the required 2/3
majority of voters who participated in that vote, and the 50% quorum of
"active voters"?

This means that saying "+0 I'm here and present but don't have a strong
opinion on this topic" would actually *reduce* the chances of a vote
passing. Is that intentional?

Example: There is a vote with 6 "yes" votes and 3 "no" votes, which
would normally pass, with 6 approvals out of the 9 total participating
voters.

Then someone adds a non-committal "+0 I don't mind" and now it works
out at 6½ approvals out of 10, which doesn't meet the threshold.

Did I get that right? Is that what we intend?

Or should the neutral vote *only* be counted as half an approval
towards the 50% quorum? And either discarded entirely or counted as 2/3
of a vote towards the required 2/3 majority of participating votes —
which are basically equivalent, and work out to 6/9 or 6⅔/10 in the
example I gave, still precisely on the 2/3 threshold with the active
abstention not having made a difference to that ratio.

> * 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")
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-adm mailing list
> openwrt-adm at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-adm

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5069 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-adm/attachments/20251024/68ac95d9/attachment.p7s>