From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from srv006.gosix.net (srv006.gosix.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:162:1506::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B35E63B25E for ; Wed, 18 May 2016 14:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv006.gosix.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581E810AC; Wed, 18 May 2016 20:39:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Fuglu-Suspect: d04682a44193460ea4fa7911ca9e5adb X-Fuglu-Spamstatus: NO X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on srv006.gosix.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: jochen@winteltosh.de) by srv006.gosix.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Wed, 18 May 2016 20:39:40 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Jochen Demmer To: John Crispin Cc: Battle of the Mesh Mailing List , cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net, ninux-dev@ml.ninux.org, guifi-dev@llistes.guifi.net, gluon@luebeck.freifunk.net, qmp-dev@mail.qmp.cat, wlanware@freifunk.net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5abc1ad51d6137fcf4b5b4239dd030b9@winteltosh.de> X-Sender: jochen@winteltosh.de X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 07:21:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] [gluon] Introducing the LEDE project X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:40:39 -0000 X-Original-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 20:39:40 +0200 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:40:39 -0000 Hi, I'm looking forward to this as I your goals sound very appealing. I have zero knowledge about what went good and what didn't at/(in the background of) the OpenWrt project. But when your implications about the past problems are right, than I'm convinced they should be overcome. What I'm curious about is: * what tools will be used in order to prevent past obstacles, with special regard to communication? * what methods will you be using to recuit more active members, while I believe it should be technically very easy to actively participate. I hope there is no exclusive focus on IRC and Mailing lists, as I consider both fringe group tools. * Especially for power users/administrators. Will there be such an overwhelming amount of documentation one day? Compatible devices, but also operating manual etc. My only concern is that this split might slow things down. I hope it won't. Jochen Demmer On 2016-05-03 20:55, John Crispin wrote: > The LEDE project is founded as a spin-off of the OpenWrt project and > shares many of the same goals. We are building an embedded Linux > distribution that makes it easy for developers, system administrators > or > other Linux enthusiasts to build and customize software for embedded > devices, especially wireless routers. The name 'LEDE' stands for 'Linux > Embedded Development Environment'. > > Members of the project already include a significant share of the most > active members of the OpenWrt community. We intend to bring new life to > Embedded Linux development by creating a community with a strong focus > on transparency, collaboration and decentralisation. > > LEDE’s stated goals are: > - Building a great embedded Linux distribution with focus on stability > and functionality. > - Having regular, predictable release cycles coupled with community > provided device testing feedback. > - Establishing transparent decision processes with broad community > participation and public meetings. > > We decided to create this new project because of long standing issues > that we were unable to fix from within the OpenWrt project/community: > 1. Number of active core developers at an all time low, no process for > getting more new people involved. > 2. Unreliable infrastructure, fixes prevented by internal disagreements > and single points of failure. > 3. Lack of communication, transparency and coordination in the OpenWrt > project, both inside the core team and between the core team and the > rest of the community. > 4. Not enough people with commit access to handle the incoming flow of > patches, too little attention to testing and regular builds. > 5. Lack of focus on stability and documentation. > > To address these issues we set up the LEDE project in a different way > compared to OpenWrt: > 1. All our communication channels are public, some read-only to > non-members to maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio. > 2. Our decision making process is more open, with an approximate 50/50 > mix of developers and power users with voting rights. > 3. Our infrastructure is simplified a lot, to ensure that it creates > less maintenance work for us. > 4. We have made our merge policy more liberal, based on our experience > with the OpenWrt package github feed. > 5. We have a strong focus on automated testing combined with a > simplified release process. > > We would like to thank the communities using the codebase and would > welcome endorsements. If your community feels that the idea is good and > will benefit all our communities as a whole then please post an > endorsement on the lede-dev mailing list. > > Find out more on our project website http://lede-project.org/ > > Daniel Golle > Felix Fietkau > Hauke Mehrtens > Jo-Philipp Wich > John Crispin > Matthias Schiffer > Steven Barth