Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi Siddhesh,

On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 17:07 -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Could you clarify in what way you think the *scope* got changed
> between 
> the private communications and the proposal that actually got posted?

Given that they were private I can only talk for myself:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/Yz9dZWC9QIv+r4LH@elastic.org/T/#m22a52506bc116dbcb10c8cbfa8ed89510f4dc1b7
But various people listed as "key stakeholders consulted" said they
either didn't know anything about this, they were contacted but never
got any details, or were only told about parts of it.

> the proposal details being open-ended is by design.
> 
> > That is why we are trying to collect all details and file sourceware
> > infrastructure bugs to track the various technical needs from a
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> > community perspective. But it would be really nice to hear directly
> > from the Linux Foundation and the OpenSSF about what exactly they are
> > proposing, which parts of the proposal are mandatory, which can be
> > mixed and matched, and how they see this working together with
> > Sourceware becoming a Software Freedom Conservancy member
> > project.
> 
> You and others have been repeating "sourceware as a project" in a 
> community owned sense as a truth for a while now but it really isn't. 
> It is Red Hat owned infrastructure that is maintained by volunteers.  It 
> is unquestioningly a community (and I'm proud part of it as someone who 
> maintains the patchwork instance), but that's not the same thing as 
> being an independent project that can do agreements and sign up for 
> memberships.
> [...]
> "sourceware overseers" could become a body that maintains sourceware and 
> is able to get funding through SFC for its activities?

That is precisely what we have been doing for the last couple of
months. And we don't believe that is in conflict with finding
alternative sources of funding, creating a technical advisory committee
and/or possibly having some "managed services" where that makes sense.

Some more background:

- 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
- 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

Cheers,

Mark