[Battlemesh] [OpenWrt-Devel] Request for Feedback - prplwrt Software Support Program - initial draft

Mon Mar 7 17:37:55 UTC 2016

Daniel,

I'm pleased to hear from you! I'm sorry that seems to be some perceived
conflict between the community and prpl. I assure you that prpl and its
members are part of the OpenWrt community and we want to engage in actions
that benefit everyone involved. We want more participation from other parts
of the community so that any choices we make at prpl about funding
projects, events, meetings or anything else are mutually beneficial. If
there are ways to improve participation, please let me know.

I've made an effort to improve the transparency of prpl's actions, I'm
sorry if it hasn't been enough. prplwrt, the prpl engineering group, has
meetings which are open to everyone and happen every week. We have a public
mailing list for prplwrt group. We talk often with core members of the
OpenWrt team. We either post notes or screencasts of the weekly prplwrt
meetings. Again, if we could do better, please let me know.

As for tivoization, prpl doesn't have a formal opinion on it. I'm
personally opposed to it but that's just me. We're certainly happy to have
that discussion in prplwrt though if it's something you'd like to bring up.

In regards to merging any projects into openwrt.git, that's up to the
community. As the PSSP proposal indicates, the likelihood of it getting
merged into upstream (if appropriate) is one of the criteria for whether a
project is funding. If there's a project working on openwrt.git which
community members don't think would be merged, the PSSP is unlikely to fund
the project.

I assure you, there's no plan that hasn't been discussed publicly. We
discuss our plans and decisions in prplwrt meetings every week and you're
welcome to join us. As for the decision-making process, the PSSP
decision-making process is documented in linked document.

I hope this email provides answers to your questions. If you have any other
questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks,

Eric

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 7:01 AM, Daniel Golle <daniel at makrotopia.org> wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 03:07:22PM -0600, Eric Schultz wrote:
> > As discussed in prplwrt meetings, prpl is interested in funding
> development
> > work on OpenWrt. In order to make this as fair as possible, I'm
> proposing a
> > process which I'm tentatively calling the prplwrt Software Support
> Program
> > (PSSP)
> >
> > PSSP will fund innovative OpenWrt development work that is responsive to
> > the needs of the OpenWrt community and industry. To make sure the process
> > benefits the community as much as possible, I'm asking for your feedback.
> > Please look through the document I've linked below and provide feedback,
> > either as comments on the document or as a reply to this message.
>
> First of all, I'm happy to read prpl is going to fund OpenWrt
> developers.
>
> As a community, OpenWrt has always been helpful to allow third-party
> modifications to software and hardware, and most developers started
> their involvment by hacking on existing consumer-grade hardware found
> in the wild rather than buying a dev-board. The ongoing tivoization
> (ie. non-hackability despite physical access to gear) makes me wonder
> about the acceptable licenses for prpl funded contributions, ie. if
> things could be licensed GPLv3, as that would (at least in theory)
> prevent locked-down devices and associated problems with
> maintainability and security. On the other hand, I'm fully aware that
> licenses cannot solve that problem unless someone actually goes to
> court and that's a lot of effort...
> The debate on the FCC-induced lock-down of WiFi devices showed that
> you are defending the *option* to modify firmware -- however, what
> about hardware and software vendors who believe that they are better
> off if their garden is fenced, independently of the FCC requirements?
> While I'm having a hard time to imagine what OpenWrt developers could
> possibly ever want from "the industry" and how prpl could help there,
> this seems to be a quite relevant aspect where an organization such as
> prpl could be helpful:
> Arguing that building devices which are defective-by-design creates
> more problems than profits in the long run, especially to society as
> a whole.
> See http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
> Is that a debate you are having?
> If so, what's prpl's position on the tivoization issue?
>
>
> Apart from that, I'm wondering how prpl funded developments will find
> their way into openwrt.git in case of conflicts or any reason which
> might lead to the changes being rejected, similar to what Linus asked
> a couple of days ago. Obviously, adding a new package will hardly
> cause any difficulties, while changes to the OpenWrt core and
> infrastructure are more likely to be problematic. For now, prpl did
> not exactly develop a reputation of discussing their plans and
> intentions publicly in a way which is accessible to anyone potentially
> affected *before* taking actions. And not everyone is necessarily
> willing to follow hours of video conferences on Youtube from which it
> is quite clear anyway that this is only the "community involvement"
> part with little insight regarding strategic decissions apparently
> being made behind closed doors.
> The draft document you shared suggests that you are willing to discuss
> things in advance, supposedly to prevent the need to fork or not
> getting the changes pushed into the OpenWrt project. However, that's
> as far as I understand the procedure for individual projects and not
> for the "themes" which could just as well be in conflict, eg. with the
> priorities set by reviewers you are depending on.
> Thus I'm concerned about transparency and mode of strategic decissions
> (democratic? plutocratic? dictatorship?) and it would be great if you
> would fully share the (apparently already decided) plan lying ahead and
> supposedly affecting many of us.
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Daniel
>
> >
> > As a quick summary, the process would go as follows:
> >
> > * prpl and its members, as funders, would set initial themes that all
> > projects would be expected to fit into.
> > * the community, prpl members, and others would submit and comment on
> ideas
> > for projects that fit those themes
> > * potential implementers would then submit proposals for implementations,
> > including a budget, timeline and general plan for implementation
> > * an OpenWrt community committee, the prpl TSC and prpl Board would
> > finalize which implementations are selected and funded.
> >
> > More details are in the linked document. I want to make sure everyone in
> > the OpenWrt community has had a chance to provide their thoughts on the
> > program so please provide your feedback as soon as possible and no later
> > than March 17.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > PSSP proposal:
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1b5LwqNPUasSafP-3NLwnV7rXRRUPDfj5yrU772dkpoc/edit?usp=sharing
> >
> > --
> > Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation
> > http://www.prplfoundation.org
> > eschultz at prplfoundation.org
> > cell: 920-539-0404
> > skype: ericschultzwi
> > @EricPrpl
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > openwrt-devel mailing list
> > openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
>
>

-- 
Eric Schultz, Community Manager, prpl Foundation
http://www.prplfoundation.org
eschultz at prplfoundation.org
cell: 920-539-0404
skype: ericschultzwi
@EricPrpl
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/battlemesh/attachments/20160307/fc9af670/attachment-0001.htm>