Re: [Action Required] glibc decision to use CTI services.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>]

On 2023-09-01 02:03, Sam James via Libc-alpha wrote:
> 
> Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> 
>> On 2023-08-30 10:31, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> I believe the LF has already agreed to implement the hosting entirely with
>>> free software.
>>
>> Where is this agreement written down? I didn't see it in the URLs
>> mentioned at the start of this thread.
>>
>> Too often it is tempting to use non-free software in these
>> enterprises, and we need to have an agreement and a commitment about
>> an enforcement mechanism that detects and repairs things if somebody
>> falls victim to this temptation (and of course that guides people away
>> from succumbing to the temptation in the first place). This detection
>> and enforcement mechanism has to be usable by glibc software
>> contributors and maintainers, not just by the CTI providers.

It is the Technical Advisory Committee that decides on the 
infrastructure tech and that is comprised completely of members from the 
GNU toolchain community.  We will make sure that glibc services are 
implemented using Free software.

>>
>> As I'm new to this (I just read yesterday that a decision is wanted by
>> today) I'll vote NAY until I see something more binding about this
>> important issue.
>>
> 
> It's still unclear to me what problems this will solve compared to
> using sourceware.
> 
> As far as I've seen, the sourceware overseers handle requests
> promptly. Is there something we've asked them to do which they've
> been unable to fulfill?

There was a fairly long thread here and on overseers list last year on 
the motivation for moving to LFIT, if that's what you're asking about. 
To summarize, it's not about the overseers, who have indeed been prompt 
in handling requests and providing support for existing infrastructure. 
It's about doing things like service isolation, future 
enhancements/scaling and dedicated devops, that current infrastructure 
(that we depend on Red Hat to provide) is unable to support. 
Essentially, this is a move from Red Hat to LF.

Sid