From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0D173858400; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 17:15:17 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A0D173858400 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id y14so15744713ejd.9; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:15:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vRoR2Bry8iNOYXaYxIatTuZPUTBVlJJIaN97kthhFPY=; b=feswoBuRW7dIFRJzJqHp3eABW7/OiMJGVjcMwX8N5oAObyi3MRpuMjbCiO4XN/8gwE x6Y+ydtkZKhqocrnPlQA4YKalfcrYY2MCP9rZHoZW5q9ZsKbta+sUBSiNytPXKw78pc/ tXy7CZ85g+gEt3v9eGPjVPy6as722Gp4z9b1A3QbWBYc+AptFo9mNbNqssjfcSeTzxVr 0TN8Z6h0dVRymeT6UfTrro6uQMYMtSoiAXtKF82K5SUPvqltcT0dqK1NnXI3CT277pz/ mNDhwEHDU+eK1NjRMW4k76KIeO4aa9PhYh2B0Mbw3GM4+barI8OrYqJG06JfgnX9C97L LnzQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=vRoR2Bry8iNOYXaYxIatTuZPUTBVlJJIaN97kthhFPY=; b=4um3MVspjh59xfikq3QbviZpBIoRiBfHmAz1OaIGuUM/u6B7eY8OTUUW3I1NT7prPZ qtvMU+pwyLJCNFSlxoSfEfpfZR7NUjr+WCvmKxtCn1pVo67R5c9FMfP1dmQp0uW5zopO tFHsFHcue96+WMaqV63fIvwCpMEPOfBBxd3x2SSc8BNKDc95L26L3lqyEm2Oziy9qCBB t4w0Kx2cEWtYtfT4Lwxc2qh3e5SAAPTf6QkTUYzSJu49m4Pb5/Hry5O+dL6IUKNWVVep ss/bS0x3CrCtpcRfXSfaEiAAqLWJCNFg922ImkX3uw71RPubT/CSgyjd2cPWUjyBpWzy vxQA== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf1VDIoJaoHFeukYPxjk9DN1AjovqiAAZ8HP6QCGvKKlQBj6RdG1 lwnbUxAdMrSActTSLFaxxcO/K2V4vtmZMO04PWyKZb2E X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM4raf+EaR5HNikL+E5cGhSrx882Ep/ACgIExkr1DQ3GHcYq0t4bE4mdehhnpAVjeZpkjQaIm1DvO7XrZR4UeLg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7286:b0:78d:2848:bc88 with SMTP id dt6-20020a170907728600b0078d2848bc88mr20289132ejc.67.1665508516176; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 10:15:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <20221004171007.oc2ot6eu6l24aipn@cgf.cx> <05b0f7fa-7077-5a8b-0c2f-dfb3068dd10f@gotplt.org> <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> In-Reply-To: From: David Edelsohn Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 13:14:50 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Mark Wielaard , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Overseers mailing list , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a27f505eac56bcb" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: --0000000000007a27f505eac56bcb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:00 PM Alexandre Oliva via Gcc wrote: > On Oct 7, 2022, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > > 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. > > That makes me very concerned. > > Negotiating a community agreement in secrecy is worrysome to boot, but > giving different stakeholders different views of what the agreement > supposedly amounts to is a political trick normally used to push an > agreement through that would have been rejected by a majority, even if > for different reasons. By presenting different views to different > parties, and misrepresenting their support for those partial views as > support for the whole they didn't even know about, one might put enough > pressure to persuade other parties to drop their objections, if they > believe the claimed broad support. > The "Sourceware as SFC member project proposal" has been negotiated in more secrecy than the GTI proposal. The "Sourceware" proposal was created without input or support from key members of any of the GNU Toolchain projects (GCC, GLIBC, GDB or Binutils). The GTI proposal has been circulated and socialized among the GNU Toolchain project leadership, GNU Toolchain project Release Managers, key developers, active members of "Overseers" and various stakeholders, including the FSF. Where was a statement from key members of the GNU Toolchain projects -- the people who actually use the services and infrastructure on a day to day basis for their participation in the GNU Toolchain projects -- asking for an alternative proposal? When were they allowed to participate in the preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit? All of the people with "skin in the game" who actively depend on the services have been included and updated at each step of developing GTI, and their feedback has helped shape the proposal. > > Even I got presented two very different views of the proposal by two of > its lead proponents, with different motivations (which is reasonable) > but factually conflicting commitments (which is not). > That is your assertion and accusation without any evidence. Another interpretation is that you didn't understand or you misinterpreted the conversations. Did you try to clarify this before making public accusations? > > This all taken together makes me conclude that the alleged support for > the proposal, claimed by its lead proponents, is not something that can > be counted on, or taken for granted. It needs to be double-checked by > circulating publicly a proposal encompassing everything that the > proposal entails, and then seeing whether it's actually acceptable as a > whole. Given the chosen strategy, I suspect it won't be. > > We appreciate everyone's opinion on this topic. Those of us working on the GTI proposal have approached it with good intentions and engaged everyone in good faith. We have not made statements maligning the motivations and intentions of those with different opinions, implying nefarious motives, nor making baseless accusations. We have been open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings, and have not used private conversations as public debating points nor for divisive purposes.. I believe that speaks for itself. Thanks, David --0000000000007a27f505eac56bcb--