Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>]

On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>> The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the
>>> services for the GNU Toolchain to the Linux Foundation IT under the auspices of
>>> the Toolchain Infrastructure project (GTI) with fiscal sponsorship from the
>>> OpenSSF and other major donors.
>>
>> Noted, however, a list of signatories does not automatically confer
>> authority over any particular project.  Any participation from
>> overseers in moving projects to different infrastructure will require
>> clear approval from the individual projects themselves.
>>
>> Also, the FSF, being the existing fiscal sponsor to these projects,
>> surely needs to review the formal agreements before we sunset our
>> infrastructural offerings to glibc, gcc, binutils, and gdb and hand
>> control of the projects' infrastructure over to a different entity.
>>
>> We'd like to assure the communities that, when and if any individual
>> project formally expresses the decision of their developers to transfer
>> their services, we'll endeavor to make the move as smooth as possible.
>> Those projects that wish to stay will continue to receive the best
>> services that the overseers can offer, with the ongoing assistance of
>> Red Hat, the SFC, and, when relevant, the FSF tech team.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 09:27:26AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to block migration of
>> all sourceware assets to the LF IT, I don't have a stake on how they'd like
>> to handle this for sourceware.  I could however, as a member of TAC (and as
>> member of projects that have agreed to migrate to LF IT, i.e. gcc and glibc),
>> discuss with others the possibility of specific community volunteers being
>> given some amount of access to manage infrastructure.
> 
> Stop spreading FUD.  The "we" in my statement above, from October 13,
> included fche, mjw, and myself.  You have no reason to be confused on
> this subject.
> 

Nope, I'm not spreading FUD, in fact that statement of yours is 
perfectly consistent with what I've said: the blocker at the moment is 
that the sourceware overseers have refused to hand over the server *in 
its entirety* to LF IT, not that any projects themselves have refused to 
move their services to LF IT.  I don't doubt that the overseers will 
help in smooth migration for projects that eventually state that they 
wish to move over.

Sid