public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>,
	Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	Overseers mailing list <overseers@sourceware.org>,
	libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org,
	Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
	binutils@sourceware.org, Ian Kelling <iank@fsf.org>
Subject: Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 11:38:49 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <40ac1e4b-a873-df1e-ad38-38a3b8fbae2b@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221023170933.GB8034@redhat.com>


On 10/23/22 11:09, Frank Ch. Eigler via Libc-alpha wrote:
> Hi -
>
>> [...]  To be specific, gcc steering committee and glibc FSF stewards
>> have announced the decision for their projects [...]
> I may be missing something.  All I've seen so far were some of the
> leaders of some of the projects being joint signatories to a letter on
> overseers@.  As far as I'm aware, that is not how any of these
> projects make or announce **project decisions** with/to their
> respective constituencies.

Right.  It's a general statement of support from a variety of leaders 
but I wouldn't consider it authoritative from any project.


For GCC the decision would be made by the overseers and relayed to the 
overseers as an official statement for the GCC project. That would 
happen after a vote by the steering committee members based on already 
established voting procedures.


>
>
>> I am not aware of any opposition from maintainers of libabigail or
>> cygwin or any other active sourceware based project over moving
>> either, but I haven't had any links to those projects, so I may be
>> uninformed.
> Indeed.  The onus is obviously on the shoulders of the proponents of
> this proposal to convince each sourceware guest project to consent to
> move.  If you wish to frame any dissent as "blocking full migration",
> then I'd say the job of convincing everyone just has not been up to
> par.  Perhaps it was the wrong goal all along.

Also agreed.  And I fully support needing a statement from project 
leadership for each project wishing to move.    That is reasonable and I 
wish we'd been clearer about that.

In simplest terms, overseers need  to be a neutral party here.

In cases where overseers have leadership roles on particular projects, 
then they will have to wear multiple hats, but it's not really 
complicated.  Each project makes a decision, by whatever means project 
leadership has in place to make decisions. overseers then honors those 
requests to stay or go.  It's a pretty simple separation of 
responsibilities.  It need not be contentious in any way shape or form.


Jeff





  reply	other threads:[~2022-10-23 17:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <2513b668-9ebd-9e78-7263-dc24f4a9558a@redhat.com>
2022-10-13 18:25 ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-14 12:33   ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-17 15:10   ` Mark Wielaard
2022-10-17 16:11     ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18  9:50       ` Mark Wielaard
2022-10-18 15:17         ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 16:42           ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-18 18:13             ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 18:14               ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 18:47                 ` Paul Smith
2022-10-21  0:33               ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-10-23  8:59           ` Ian Kelling
2022-10-23 13:27             ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 15:16               ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-10-23 16:07                 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 16:32                   ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 17:01                   ` Jeff Law
2022-10-23 22:35                     ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-23 17:09                   ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-10-23 17:38                     ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-10-24  1:51                     ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 20:57               ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-23 21:17                 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 21:59                   ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-24  1:29                     ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 11:33       ` Ian Kelling
2022-10-23 16:17         ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 18:56           ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2022-10-23 21:19 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-10-23 22:07   ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-12 17:40 Carlos O'Donell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=40ac1e4b-a873-df1e-ad38-38a3b8fbae2b@gmail.com \
    --to=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=fche@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=iank@fsf.org \
    --cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
    --cc=mark@klomp.org \
    --cc=overseers@sourceware.org \
    --cc=siddhesh@gotplt.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).