Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'

2024-04-18 Thread Paul D
On 2024-04-16 16:41, Etienne Champetier wrote:
> Le mar. 16 avr. 2024 à 10:34, Paul D  a écrit :
>>
>> On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote:
>>>
>>> As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ?
>>>
>>> Etienne
>>>
>>
>> Is this happening?
> 
> Sorry I missed your last ping
> This was an open question, I don't know who to contact at SFC
> 
> Looking at old emails, John, Jo and Hauke are our liaison with SFC

So, John, Jo and Hauke, 

who is the current liaison to SFC?

what does the SFC think?



___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel


Re: here we are again: real name 'discussion'

2024-04-18 Thread John Crispin
I do not see anyone from the committers complaining about the revert. If 
folks felt that a vote was neccesseary, then someone would have started one.


I have a feeling that folks are happy with the old status quo and no 
vote is required.


    John

On 18.04.24 16:13, Paul D wrote:

On 2024-04-16 16:41, Etienne Champetier wrote:

Le mar. 16 avr. 2024 à 10:34, Paul D  a écrit :

On 2024-03-27 23:56, Etienne Champetier wrote:

As this is a legal issue, should we get SFC opinion first ?

Etienne


Is this happening?

Sorry I missed your last ping
This was an open question, I don't know who to contact at SFC

Looking at old emails, John, Jo and Hauke are our liaison with SFC

So, John, Jo and Hauke,

who is the current liaison to SFC?

what does the SFC think?



___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel


___
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel