From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9E6385B839; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 08:00:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EC9E6385B839 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from reform (deer0x0e.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 674B93021EB2; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by reform (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0C052E83681; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:19 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: David Edelsohn Cc: Alexandre Oliva , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Overseers mailing list , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <20221004171007.oc2ot6eu6l24aipn@cgf.cx> <05b0f7fa-7077-5a8b-0c2f-dfb3068dd10f@gotplt.org> <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3033.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi David, On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:14:50PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > an alternative proposal? When were they allowed to participate in the > preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit? It wasn't really meant as an alternative proposal. And tt shouldn't be in conflict with finding alternative sources of funding, creating a technical advisory committee or having some managed services. And it is a about having a public discussion. - 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 > 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 Then lets just let the past be the past. Now that the proposal is public lets discuss it publicly. There have been various question about the details on the overseers list. Lets just discuss those and see how we can move forward. Cheers, Mark