[vote] Update OpenWrt rules

[Zoltan HERPAI]

Hi,

On Thu, 23 Oct 2025, 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
[...]
> _**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
>  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.
> * 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.

Hi,

No. Can't see why abstaining should count as half-approval, this is a 
flawed idea, being close to the lines of gerrymandering.

I also don't agree on outsourcing our infrastructure - keeping it in-house 
requires resources indeed, which we scarcely have. However, in case of 
services going down or being shut down, keeping them in-house saves us 
from being locked out from the very services we have or need without our 
control ("when will XYZ service be back?"), whatever trusted the 
outsourced service providers might be.

Also, while highlighting the importance of a vote is appreciated, stating 
that "if you want further changes to this topic, please approve the vote 
about this very topic" also sounds flawed to me - sorry Rich.

Regards,
Zoltan H