From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03F9C3858D38; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:23:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 03F9C3858D38 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from reform (deer0x0e.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 91D123021EB2; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:23:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by reform (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7C95B2E833F8; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:23:40 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 23:23:40 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Florian Weimer Cc: Mark Wielaard via Overseers , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: References: <05b0f7fa-7077-5a8b-0c2f-dfb3068dd10f@gotplt.org> <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> <87h709yybk.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87h709yybk.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1012.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Florian, On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 03:18:55PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mark Wielaard via Overseers: > > And it is a about having a public discussion. > > > > - Sourceware roadmap discussions > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q2/018453.html > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q2/018529.html > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018636.html > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018716.html > > Overseers was a hidden list until recently: > > Right, it wasn't advertised, but it was public: https://web.archive.org/web/20220826033101/https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/overseers There were a couple of lists that were public, but not advertised, which changed when we setup our public-inbox instance: https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/YwJuV4e0I01sWxi0@wildebeest.org/ This was in part because we also handle account request on overseers. It felt like a good idea to not make it easy for search engines archive those. We now have a new (private, not archived) account-requests list for that. > I'm pointing this out to show how difficult it is to build public > consensus. You might think you are doing it, but the view from the > outside is probably quite different. Yes, I certainly see your point. But we did also post to the 20 most active sourceware project lists about some proposals. And some of the posts about the roadmap and the discussion about joining the conservancy even made it to new sites like lwn: Sourceware – GNU Toolchain Infrastructure roadmap https://lwn.net/Articles/898655/ Sourceware seeking support from the Software Freedom Conservancy https://lwn.net/Articles/906502/ And as the archives show we did publicly discuss things and actually answered any questions people had: - Joining Software Freedom Conservancy as member project proposal https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018802.html - Full Sourceware SFC application text https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018804.html - Public SFC video chat meeting notes https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018837.html - Cauldron discussion notes and chat logs https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018849.html I really liked some of these discussions. Hopefully in the future we can do quarterly sourceware BBB video chats about any infrastructure issues people/projects have. Cheers, Mark