From: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh@gotplt.org>
To: Ian Kelling <iank@fsf.org>,
Overseers mailing list <overseers@sourceware.org>,
gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>,
libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 21:29:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <95944572-9614-c492-a286-792f8d2f250f@gotplt.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221023215911.a3cxlalrp5pp64ve@cgf.cx>
On 2022-10-23 17:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Your initial implication was that the unreasonable overseers would hold
> all projects hostage on our current infrastructure.
Absolutely not, you and I have had multiple exchanges on this list so
far and I'd have trusted you to take my statement above in the correct
context. I did not even negate your statement when you stated that the
overseers would support seamless migration of services over to LF IT and
in fact supplemented[1] by saying that the transition would likely take
years.
> Now you've "clarified"
> that point by implying that we've been approached to transfer the server
> "in its entirety" to the LF and have unreasonably refused.
You literally have an email on the list with the subject like "Moving
sourceware to the Linux Foundation? no thanks".
> Both of those are FUD. You're either intentionally trying to muddy the
> waters or you're just confused. I'd submit that in either case you should
> just think about shutting up. You have no special authority to speak for
> the GTI TAC and your increasingly hostile messages are not helping anyone.
It's funny that you're asking me to shut up and also implying that my
messages are hostile.
Sid
[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018987.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-24 1:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-12 16:43 Carlos O'Donell
2022-10-12 18:13 ` Andrew Pinski
2022-10-13 18:25 ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-14 12:33 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-17 15:10 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-10-17 16:11 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 9:50 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-10-18 15:17 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 16:42 ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-18 18:13 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 18:14 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18 18:47 ` Paul Smith
2022-10-21 0:33 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-10-23 8:59 ` Ian Kelling
2022-10-23 13:27 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 15:16 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-10-23 16:07 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 16:32 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 17:01 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-23 22:35 ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-23 17:09 ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-10-23 17:38 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-24 1:51 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-24 12:40 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-10-23 20:57 ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-23 21:17 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 21:59 ` Christopher Faylor
2022-10-24 1:29 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar [this message]
2022-10-23 11:33 ` Ian Kelling
2022-10-23 16:17 ` Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-23 18:56 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2022-10-23 21:19 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-10-23 22:07 ` Christopher Faylor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=95944572-9614-c492-a286-792f8d2f250f@gotplt.org \
--to=siddhesh@gotplt.org \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=iank@fsf.org \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
--cc=overseers@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).