From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 409453854171; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 22:35:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 409453854171 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=sourceware.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cgf.cx X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx B035EEA122 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 spammy=Tokens not available. Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 18:35:30 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: Jeff Law Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Overseers mailing list , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support Message-ID: <20221023223530.h2fdrnfivlkzevos@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Law , Siddhesh Poyarekar , "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Overseers mailing list , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , binutils@sourceware.org References: <20221013182529.sm76fysq37sv754x@cgf.cx> <9c0a9111-07b1-3617-c5c8-4b12e616f985@gotplt.org> <7abeb179-2c05-eee9-bd68-3b5f8a11bd32@gotplt.org> <87zgdmyg30.fsf@fsf.org> <230909ee-fb2c-cca0-abbe-fd7d6434efab@gotplt.org> <20221023151640.GA8034@redhat.com> <0bac951e-8f5e-deb6-c126-26d5fbd0bbfe@gotplt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 List-Id: On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 11:01:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >On 10/23/22 10:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >>>If you're trying to suggest that overseers, contrary to our repeated >>>public statements, wish to block all migration, that is untrue and you >>>will need to retract this. >> >>Here's a more precise statement: Two of the overseers are leaders of >>projects hosted on sourceware and three overseers (including those two) >>have stated clearly on multiple occasions that transitioning to LF IT >>is off the table, effectively announcing their decision on behalf of >>projects they lead.  It is hence clear that the overseers have >>effectively blocked full migration of sourceware to LF IT. > >They can make those decisions for the projects they lead.  But making >the decision or setting criteria for other projects is highly >unreasonable. This is not, IMO, helping. On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >We'd like to assure the communities that, when and if any individual >project formally expresses the decision of their developers to transfer >their services, we'll endeavor to make the move as smooth as possible. >Those projects that wish to stay will continue to receive the best >services that the overseers can offer, with the ongoing assistance of >Red Hat, the SFC, and, when relevant, the FSF tech team. We can't help move anyone without first establishing some kind of criteria. The only reasonable criteria is a formal request from the project being moved. As an exercise in human psychology, these insinuations of anticipated unhelpfulness *can* eventually be a self-fullfilling prophecy, though. i.e., if you really do not *want* any help with any transitions of projects then, just keep implying, despite evidence to the contrary, that we might be unreasonable jerks.