From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D51A3858C78 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2023 22:01:38 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9D51A3858C78 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org Received: from linux-libre.fsfla.org ([2001:470:142:5::54] helo=free.home) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qe0af-0006NU-9I; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 18:01:37 -0400 Received: from livre (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by free.home (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 386M1OK6210186 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 6 Sep 2023 19:01:25 -0300 From: Alexandre Oliva To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Cc: GNU C Library Subject: Re: GNU C Library as its own CNA? Organization: Free thinker, not speaking for the GNU Project References: <1f5a1295-36d1-ab5e-86ec-1e91acefc63f@gotplt.org> <8f303953-3e5e-582f-ab4b-d3d0911f3be2@gotplt.org> <8222787b-f534-a827-ebf5-d9100844228d@gotplt.org> Errors-To: aoliva@lxoliva.fsfla.org Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 19:01:24 -0300 In-Reply-To: <8222787b-f534-a827-ebf5-d9100844228d@gotplt.org> (Siddhesh Poyarekar's message of "Wed, 6 Sep 2023 14:57:43 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,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: On Sep 6, 2023, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: > On 2023-09-06 14:35, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> I hope someone with access to that organization can pass on this >> constructive criticism and recommend them to drop this self-defeating >> requirements from their web pages, so that we can consider joining as a >> CNA, whether as a package or as a project. > Are you implying that the decision to become a CNA (or not) has to be > taken by the GNU maintainers and that volunteers from the glibc > community cannot self-organize and do that? No, that would be reading too much into what I wrote about an earlier attempt to make GNU a CNA. I'd just be surprised if anyone serious about software freedom and security would seriously consider engaging with that web site while it remains detrimental to both of these concerns. If we can find people who don't mind interacting with it as it is, I suppose we might, but there might be continuity challenges, and, having been denied access to the site because of javascrippling, I don't even know how much of a commitment by any community it would amount to. I expect finding people who care about freedom and security but don't mind interacting with that website to be difficult, so that is a point of concern for me. If we do find a path forward, however, it would be useful to extend it to all of GNU, because there was much interest, we just couldn't figure out a way to make interaction viable. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Think Assange & Stallman. The empires strike back