public inbox for overseers@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
@ 2022-08-30 18:03 Frank Ch. Eigler
  2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
                   ` (4 more replies)
  0 siblings, 5 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Frank Ch. Eigler @ 2022-08-30 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: overseers; +Cc: Bradley M. Kuhn, Daniel Pono Takamori

The overseers of the hosting server sourceware.org aka cygwin.org aka
gcc.gnu.org aka (others *) invite the community to assist us in
further securing the future of the service.  Red Hat has been and
continues to be a generous sponsor of the hardware, connectivity, and
the very modest employee time it requires.  We are glad to report
there are zero indications of any change to this commitment.  Things
are stable, new services are coming online, and users seem to be
happy.  However, it is always good to think about any future needs.

To protect confidence in the long term future of this hosting service,
we have reached out to the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) to
function as a "fiscal sponsor".  For those who aren't familiar with
it, the SFC is a registered US 501(c)(3) public-benefit charity,
associated with dozens of major FOSS projects, including Buildbot,
Inkscape, Git, Outreachy, QEMU and Xapian:
https://sfconservancy.org/projects/current/

SFC takes open applications from FOSS communities and projects. Our
application process has just begun.  As a part of this effort, we
contemplate no necessary technical change or disruption of any sort,
including to operations, governance, or hosted project procedures or
licensing.  It would be solely a way to help future needs by providing
routing for financial contributions, and have an official, charitable
entity (with a real legal existence) for supporting sourceware.org.
If accepted as a member project, sourceware.org would have access to
this list of services from SFC, and possibly more:
https://sfconservancy.org/projects/services/

This year, we set up a roadmap to improve the services for tracking
and automation of email based patches and testing
https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/YrLdfDWzq1T4k5xg@wildebeest.org/
This resulted in the launch of several new or updated services
(builder.sourceware.org, patchwork.sourceware.org and
inbox.sourceware.org).  This didn't need any additional funds (except
for the sourcehut mirror which costs $10 a month).  We are proud to
operate these services with minimal costs so we can sustain them both
in good and in bad years.  But that doesn't mean everything has to be
done on a zero budget.  Financial contributions are more than welcome
so that if the need arises we can contract for some unusual admin
stuff or additions to services like bugzilla, buildbot, patchwork,
public-inbox or sourcehut.

There are a few small-ticket items that we would dearly welcome
community assistance with.  This is just a draft of a draft, just to
give you an idea of the scope.  No gigaprojects, just community scale:
helping each other out.  That kind of low-budget efficiency seems to
be a perfect match for SFC.

- For helping future overseers come on board, we'd love someone's help
  to write refreshed SOP documentation about how things work and how
  to fix problems.

- We could use more documentation for projects to help them come on
  board, operate their share of the infrastructure, and easily leave
  if they like.

- We might need a new security review and more tooling to manage
  credentials and access.

- We could use help further automating the management of the new
  buildbot system, and would love ever more build workers.

- Some projects operate extra infrastructure services on sourceware
  that require occasional updates, which they would prefer to offload
  to someone else.

These are only some ideas.  We'd love yours.  We can start tracking
these on bugzilla, why not?
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi?product=sourceware

We would especially love to hear from people who are able to oversee
and/or carry out this kind of work.  If our application to the SFC
succeeds, we need likeminded folks to help officially judge funding
priorities.  We promise the SFC application & committee work would be
as low-stakes and informal as possible.  Bradley and Daniel from the
Conservancy have agreed to monitor this discussion and answer any
questions about what the SFC can and cannot do to help us if we become
an SFC member project.

Sourceware has been operating since 1998.  With your advice and help,
we can keep hosting projects and their developers, comfortably and
steadily, another few decades.  https://sourceware.org/mission.html

Chris Faylor <cgf@sourceware.org>
Frank Eigler <fche@sourceware.org>
Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>


(others *): We are reaching out to the 20 most active projects on
Sourceware (binutils, bunsen, bzip2, cgen, cygwin, debugedit, dwz,
elfutils, gcc, gccrs, gdb, glibc, insight, kawa, libabigail, libffi,
newlib, sid, systemtap, valgrind) about this proposal to make sure
nobody is caught unaware. And Sourceware is also responsible for
preserving the history of another 40 projects which are either less
active, have been archived or moved on.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-08-30 18:03 proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project Frank Ch. Eigler
@ 2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
  2022-09-01 18:10   ` Christopher Faylor
  2022-09-02 10:14   ` Mark Wielaard
  2022-09-01 18:45 ` Corinna Vinschen
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Elena Zannoni @ 2022-09-01 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list, Frank Ch. Eigler
  Cc: Daniel Pono Takamori, Bradley M. Kuhn

On 8/30/22 12:03 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> The overseers of the hosting server sourceware.org aka cygwin.org aka
> gcc.gnu.org aka (others *) invite the community to assist us in
> further securing the future of the service.  Red Hat has been and
> continues to be a generous sponsor of the hardware, connectivity, and
> the very modest employee time it requires.  We are glad to report
> there are zero indications of any change to this commitment.  Things
> are stable, new services are coming online, and users seem to be
> happy.  However, it is always good to think about any future needs.
> 
> To protect confidence in the long term future of this hosting service,
> we have reached out to the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) to
> function as a "fiscal sponsor".  For those who aren't familiar with
> it, the SFC is a registered US 501(c)(3) public-benefit charity,
> associated with dozens of major FOSS projects, including Buildbot,
> Inkscape, Git, Outreachy, QEMU and Xapian:
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/current/
> 
> SFC takes open applications from FOSS communities and projects. Our
> application process has just begun.  As a part of this effort, we
> contemplate no necessary technical change or disruption of any sort,
> including to operations, governance, or hosted project procedures or
> licensing.  It would be solely a way to help future needs by providing
> routing for financial contributions, and have an official, charitable
> entity (with a real legal existence) for supporting sourceware.org.
> If accepted as a member project, sourceware.org would have access to
> this list of services from SFC, and possibly more:
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/services/
> 
> This year, we set up a roadmap to improve the services for tracking
> and automation of email based patches and testing
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/YrLdfDWzq1T4k5xg@wildebeest.org/
> This resulted in the launch of several new or updated services
> (builder.sourceware.org, patchwork.sourceware.org and
> inbox.sourceware.org).  This didn't need any additional funds (except
> for the sourcehut mirror which costs $10 a month).  We are proud to
> operate these services with minimal costs so we can sustain them both
> in good and in bad years.  But that doesn't mean everything has to be
> done on a zero budget.  Financial contributions are more than welcome
> so that if the need arises we can contract for some unusual admin
> stuff or additions to services like bugzilla, buildbot, patchwork,
> public-inbox or sourcehut.
> 
> There are a few small-ticket items that we would dearly welcome
> community assistance with.  This is just a draft of a draft, just to
> give you an idea of the scope.  No gigaprojects, just community scale:
> helping each other out.  That kind of low-budget efficiency seems to
> be a perfect match for SFC.
> 
> - For helping future overseers come on board, we'd love someone's help
>   to write refreshed SOP documentation about how things work and how
>   to fix problems.
> 
> - We could use more documentation for projects to help them come on
>   board, operate their share of the infrastructure, and easily leave
>   if they like.
> 
> - We might need a new security review and more tooling to manage
>   credentials and access.
> 
> - We could use help further automating the management of the new
>   buildbot system, and would love ever more build workers.
> 
> - Some projects operate extra infrastructure services on sourceware
>   that require occasional updates, which they would prefer to offload
>   to someone else.
> 
> These are only some ideas.  We'd love yours.  We can start tracking
> these on bugzilla, why not?
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi?product=sourceware
> 
> We would especially love to hear from people who are able to oversee
> and/or carry out this kind of work.  If our application to the SFC
> succeeds, we need likeminded folks to help officially judge funding
> priorities.  We promise the SFC application & committee work would be
> as low-stakes and informal as possible.  Bradley and Daniel from the
> Conservancy have agreed to monitor this discussion and answer any
> questions about what the SFC can and cannot do to help us if we become
> an SFC member project.
> 
> Sourceware has been operating since 1998.  With your advice and help,
> we can keep hosting projects and their developers, comfortably and
> steadily, another few decades.  https://sourceware.org/mission.html
> 
> Chris Faylor <cgf@sourceware.org>
> Frank Eigler <fche@sourceware.org>
> Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
> 
> 
> (others *): We are reaching out to the 20 most active projects on
> Sourceware (binutils, bunsen, bzip2, cgen, cygwin, debugedit, dwz,
> elfutils, gcc, gccrs, gdb, glibc, insight, kawa, libabigail, libffi,
> newlib, sid, systemtap, valgrind) about this proposal to make sure
> nobody is caught unaware. And Sourceware is also responsible for
> preserving the history of another 40 projects which are either less
> active, have been archived or moved on.
> 
> 
> ed on.
> 

Hi folks, good to see this effort.

As one of the old timers that was there at the initial setup of the
public repos in 1998, I first of all want to thank you for keeping this
effort going smoothly for such a long time.

My team uses sourceware services every day and we wouldn't be able to do
so without your dedication.

The announcements of latest improvements and updates and the roadmap
itself have not been seen by many people I am afraid, so I think it's
worth to point to them here:

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

Would it be worth to put them in the News section of sourceware.org?
Maybe also post the roadmap on a page on sourceware.org?

It is good to see this effort to regularize the responsibilities for
Sourceware a bit more. I agree that a fiscal sponsor is a good thing to
have and the SFC seems like a good home. Hopefully the governance can be
maintained as light as possible, and hopefully it will be neutral,
having the best interest of the developer communities in mind.

I do not believe that Sourceware is broken as it is today, but
establishing a more solid structure will help to maintain it healthy for
many more years to come.

thanks!
elena

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
@ 2022-09-01 18:10   ` Christopher Faylor
  2022-09-02 10:14   ` Mark Wielaard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Faylor @ 2022-09-01 18:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Elena Zannoni; +Cc: Overseers mailing list

Thanks Elena.

In case it isn't clear we're doing this for all of the projects on this page:
https://sourceware.org/projects.html (some of which are defunct, but still).  This isn't just for
the GNU Toolchain projects like binutils, gcc, gdb, and glibc .

We're also interested in hearing from popular projects like cygwin, newlib, and systemtap


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-08-30 18:03 proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project Frank Ch. Eigler
  2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
@ 2022-09-01 18:45 ` Corinna Vinschen
  2022-09-01 18:54   ` Frank Ch. Eigler
  2022-09-02 10:51   ` Mark Wielaard
  2022-09-02 11:47 ` Mark Wielaard
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2022-09-01 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: overseers

On Aug 30 14:03, Frank Ch. Eigler via Overseers wrote:
> SFC takes open applications from FOSS communities and projects. Our
> application process has just begun.  As a part of this effort, we
> contemplate no necessary technical change or disruption of any sort,
> including to operations, governance, or hosted project procedures or
> licensing.  It would be solely a way to help future needs by providing
> routing for financial contributions, and have an official, charitable
> entity (with a real legal existence) for supporting sourceware.org.
> If accepted as a member project, sourceware.org would have access to
> this list of services from SFC, and possibly more:
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/services/

Some of these services sound pretty good.  I like especially the
"Avoid Non-Profit Administrivia" :)))

> This year, we set up a roadmap to improve the services for tracking
> and automation of email based patches and testing
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/YrLdfDWzq1T4k5xg@wildebeest.org/
> This resulted in the launch of several new or updated services
> (builder.sourceware.org, patchwork.sourceware.org and
> inbox.sourceware.org).  This didn't need any additional funds (except
> for the sourcehut mirror which costs $10 a month).  We are proud to
> operate these services with minimal costs so we can sustain them both
> in good and in bad years.  But that doesn't mean everything has to be
> done on a zero budget.  Financial contributions are more than welcome
> so that if the need arises we can contract for some unusual admin
> stuff or additions to services like bugzilla, buildbot, patchwork,
> public-inbox or sourcehut.

I'd like to raise my finger here.  As you probably know well, Cygwin has
very little need for official services like the above.  Apart from
website, git, and mailing list, we especially require the handcrafted
services for our Windows-centric package management of our distro.
We're maintaining this stuff pretty much self-sufficiently for a long
time.  I take it this can continue and will still be supported in
future?


Corinna


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-09-01 18:45 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2022-09-01 18:54   ` Frank Ch. Eigler
  2022-09-02 10:51   ` Mark Wielaard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Frank Ch. Eigler @ 2022-09-01 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: overseers

Hi, Corinna -


> > [...] It would be solely a way to help future needs by providing
> > routing for financial contributions, and have an official, charitable
> > entity (with a real legal existence) for supporting sourceware.org.
>
> Some of these services sound pretty good.  I like especially the
> "Avoid Non-Profit Administrivia" :)))

Yeah, and none of that is for individual guest projects to worry about
anyway.  That's for people who want to help guide funding and related
work on the shared infrastructure.


> [...]  I'd like to raise my finger here.  As you probably know well,
> Cygwin has very little need for official services like the above.
> Apart from website, git, and mailing list, we especially require the
> handcrafted services for our Windows-centric package management of
> our distro.  We're maintaining this stuff pretty much
> self-sufficiently for a long time.  I take it this can continue and
> will still be supported in future?

Nothing about the proposed SFC arrangement implies ANY change to how
any of our valued guest projects enjoy their home on sourceware.  They
remain welcome to come, stay, and leave if they like.


- FChE

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
  2022-09-01 18:10   ` Christopher Faylor
@ 2022-09-02 10:14   ` Mark Wielaard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Wielaard @ 2022-09-02 10:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list, Frank Ch. Eigler
  Cc: Elena Zannoni, Daniel Pono Takamori

Hi Elena,

On Thu, 2022-09-01 at 08:19 -0600, Elena Zannoni via Overseers wrote:
> Hi folks, good to see this effort.
> 
> As one of the old timers that was there at the initial setup of the
> public repos in 1998, I first of all want to thank you for keeping
> this effort going smoothly for such a long time.
> 
> My team uses sourceware services every day and we wouldn't be able to
> do so without your dedication.

Thanks.

> The announcements of latest improvements and updates and the roadmap
> itself have not been seen by many people I am afraid, so I think it's
> worth to point to them here:
> 
> 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
> 
> Would it be worth to put them in the News section of sourceware.org?
> Maybe also post the roadmap on a page on sourceware.org?

Thanks for noticing. And yeah, maybe we aren't selling our services
enough. But if we would need to then it would also probably mean the
services aren't zero-maintenance (for the projects). And we really
don't want to oversell. Ideally the services just keep on improving
without anybody needing to care.

I did just add the services from the roadmap which are more or less
ready builder.sourceware.org, patchwork.sourceware.org and
inbox.sourceware.org to the homepage so people can find them easily.

We were actually talking about changing the homepage to be all about
the projects hosted on sourceware instead of sourceware itself. So you
would easily find news, mailinglists, repos and activity for each one.

> It is good to see this effort to regularize the responsibilities for
> Sourceware a bit more. I agree that a fiscal sponsor is a good thing to
> have and the SFC seems like a good home. Hopefully the governance can be
> maintained as light as possible, and hopefully it will be neutral,
> having the best interest of the developer communities in mind.
> 
> I do not believe that Sourceware is broken as it is today, but
> establishing a more solid structure will help to maintain it healthy for
> many more years to come.

That is certainly the intention!

Thanks for your feedback,

Mark

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-09-01 18:45 ` Corinna Vinschen
  2022-09-01 18:54   ` Frank Ch. Eigler
@ 2022-09-02 10:51   ` Mark Wielaard
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Wielaard @ 2022-09-02 10:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: overseers; +Cc: Corinna Vinschen

Hi Corinna,

On Thu, 2022-09-01 at 20:45 +0200, Corinna Vinschen via Overseers wrote:
> On Aug 30 14:03, Frank Ch. Eigler via Overseers wrote:
> > This year, we set up a roadmap to improve the services for tracking
> > and automation of email based patches and testing
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/YrLdfDWzq1T4k5xg@wildebeest.org/
> > This resulted in the launch of several new or updated services
> > (builder.sourceware.org, patchwork.sourceware.org and
> > inbox.sourceware.org).  This didn't need any additional funds (except
> > for the sourcehut mirror which costs $10 a month).  We are proud to
> > operate these services with minimal costs so we can sustain them both
> > in good and in bad years.  But that doesn't mean everything has to be
> > done on a zero budget.  Financial contributions are more than welcome
> > so that if the need arises we can contract for some unusual admin
> > stuff or additions to services like bugzilla, buildbot, patchwork,
> > public-inbox or sourcehut.
> 
> I'd like to raise my finger here.  As you probably know well, Cygwin
> has very little need for official services like the above.

Of course you don't need to use any of them if you don't need them. All
the cygwin mailinglists are now also included in the public-inbox
instance at https://inbox.sourceware.org/ (so also accessible through
git, atom, imap and nntp) but that doesn't change anything about the
existing mailinglist setups. And you can ignore patchwork and builder
if you don't need them. But they are there in case you do.

>   Apart from
> website, git, and mailing list, we especially require the handcrafted
> services for our Windows-centric package management of our distro.
> We're maintaining this stuff pretty much self-sufficiently for a long
> time.  I take it this can continue and will still be supported in
> future?

Of course! Like Frank already said "we contemplate no necessary
technical change or disruption of any sort, including to operations,
governance, or hosted project procedures or licensing.  It would be
solely a way to help future needs by providing routing for financial
contributions, and have an official, charitable entity (with a real
legal existence) for supporting sourceware.org."

Thanks,

Mark

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-08-30 18:03 proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project Frank Ch. Eigler
  2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
  2022-09-01 18:45 ` Corinna Vinschen
@ 2022-09-02 11:47 ` Mark Wielaard
  2022-09-05 12:20 ` Dodji Seketeli
  2022-09-08 19:16 ` SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available Daniel Pono Takamori
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Wielaard @ 2022-09-02 11:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list
  Cc: Frank Ch. Eigler, Daniel Pono Takamori, Bradley M. Kuhn

Hi,

On Tue, 2022-08-30 at 14:03 -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler via Overseers
wrote:
> We are reaching out to the 20 most active projects on
> Sourceware (binutils, bunsen, bzip2, cgen, cygwin, debugedit, dwz,
> elfutils, gcc, gccrs, gdb, glibc, insight, kawa, libabigail, libffi,
> newlib, sid, systemtap, valgrind) about this proposal to make sure
> nobody is caught unaware. And Sourceware is also responsible for
> preserving the history of another 40 projects which are either less
> active, have been archived or moved on.

So this generated almost 6000 emails about the proposal and even an lwn
news article: https://lwn.net/Articles/906502/

And normally you hit at least one troll when doing such a broad public
discussion (knock on wood) which is why I was a little hesitant when
the Conservancy requested we be very public about the application. But
all responses have been positive. I didn't even get any negative
personal emails about spamming so many people.

Also asking around in some of the irc channels of a few sourceware
projects people seemed positive about the application or at worst
neutral. No negative reactions at all.

So I believe people are generally happy with how overseers are handling
sourceware and people trust SFC to be a good fiscal sponsor for the
project.

Cheers,

Mark

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project
  2022-08-30 18:03 proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project Frank Ch. Eigler
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-09-02 11:47 ` Mark Wielaard
@ 2022-09-05 12:20 ` Dodji Seketeli
  2022-09-08 19:16 ` SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available Daniel Pono Takamori
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Dodji Seketeli @ 2022-09-05 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list
  Cc: Frank Ch. Eigler, Daniel Pono Takamori, Bradley M. Kuhn

Hello,

First of all, I'd like to warmly thank the overseers of the sourceware
service for providing us with such a great home during all those years.

And things just kept improving.  For instance, I am an extremely happy
user of the buildbot and inbox services.  What a change these brought!
And all of that based on a 100% Free Software infrastructure.  For some
of us, that matters a lot.

[...]

"Frank Ch. Eigler via Overseers" <overseers@sourceware.org> a écrit:

> The overseers of the hosting server sourceware.org aka cygwin.org aka
> gcc.gnu.org aka (others *) invite the community to assist us in
> further securing the future of the service.  Red Hat has been and
> continues to be a generous sponsor of the hardware, connectivity, and
> the very modest employee time it requires.  We are glad to report
> there are zero indications of any change to this commitment.  Things
> are stable, new services are coming online, and users seem to be
> happy.  However, it is always good to think about any future needs.
>
> To protect confidence in the long term future of this hosting service,
> we have reached out to the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) to
> function as a "fiscal sponsor".  For those who aren't familiar with
> it, the SFC is a registered US 501(c)(3) public-benefit charity,
> associated with dozens of major FOSS projects, including Buildbot,
> Inkscape, Git, Outreachy, QEMU and Xapian:
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/current/

I am thrilled to see this development. 

I must say that I didn't need my confidence in the long term future of
this hosting service to be protected given how smooth things have been
so far.

Given how strong of a steward the SFC has been for so many great
Free Software projects over the years, I welcome this move
wholeheartedly.

With my humble libabigail maintainer hat on, this is a +10000 from me.

[...]

Cheers,

-- 
		Dodji

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available
  2022-08-30 18:03 proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project Frank Ch. Eigler
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-09-05 12:20 ` Dodji Seketeli
@ 2022-09-08 19:16 ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  2022-09-09 14:55   ` Karen M. Sandler
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Pono Takamori @ 2022-09-08 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Frank Ch. Eigler, overseers

We're pleased to report that SFC's Evaluations Committee has voted to
accept Sourceware! The next step is to review the legal agreement:

    https://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
    https://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.odt

We're in the middle of updating our template to improve it a little bit,
but there are no substantive changes. The most important section is
building the governance section 6, for which the template has various
suggested structures.

We'd like to have a meeting where anyone can join and ask questions
about the agreement or anything else about joining SFC. We'll be hosting
3 calls to let community members join when is best for them: 15:00 UTC
Friday, 18:00 UTC Saturday and 17:00 UTC Monday on BigBlueButton. We'll
post the links to this mailing list right before the calls.

Just for clarity since we heard about some confusion in backchannel: SFC
is offering membership to the Sourceware hosting project itself, not to
the guest projects that receive services *from* Sourceware. We are
completely aware that, for example, the various GNU projects that
receive services from Sourceware already have a fiscal sponsor — i.e.,
the FSF. We are not seeking to take those projects from the FSF,
rather, to offer SFC's services to the Sourceware hosting platform
itself.

We're glad to answer questions on this and anything else related at
these sessions!

Thanks and see you there!
-Pono


On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 02:03:13PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> The overseers of the hosting server sourceware.org aka cygwin.org aka
> gcc.gnu.org aka (others *) invite the community to assist us in
> further securing the future of the service.  Red Hat has been and
> continues to be a generous sponsor of the hardware, connectivity, and
> the very modest employee time it requires.  We are glad to report
> there are zero indications of any change to this commitment.  Things
> are stable, new services are coming online, and users seem to be
> happy.  However, it is always good to think about any future needs.
> 
> To protect confidence in the long term future of this hosting service,
> we have reached out to the Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) to
> function as a "fiscal sponsor".  For those who aren't familiar with
> it, the SFC is a registered US 501(c)(3) public-benefit charity,
> associated with dozens of major FOSS projects, including Buildbot,
> Inkscape, Git, Outreachy, QEMU and Xapian:
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/current/
> 
> SFC takes open applications from FOSS communities and projects. Our
> application process has just begun.  As a part of this effort, we
> contemplate no necessary technical change or disruption of any sort,
> including to operations, governance, or hosted project procedures or
> licensing.  It would be solely a way to help future needs by providing
> routing for financial contributions, and have an official, charitable
> entity (with a real legal existence) for supporting sourceware.org.
> If accepted as a member project, sourceware.org would have access to
> this list of services from SFC, and possibly more:
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/services/
> 
> This year, we set up a roadmap to improve the services for tracking
> and automation of email based patches and testing
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/YrLdfDWzq1T4k5xg@wildebeest.org/
> This resulted in the launch of several new or updated services
> (builder.sourceware.org, patchwork.sourceware.org and
> inbox.sourceware.org).  This didn't need any additional funds (except
> for the sourcehut mirror which costs $10 a month).  We are proud to
> operate these services with minimal costs so we can sustain them both
> in good and in bad years.  But that doesn't mean everything has to be
> done on a zero budget.  Financial contributions are more than welcome
> so that if the need arises we can contract for some unusual admin
> stuff or additions to services like bugzilla, buildbot, patchwork,
> public-inbox or sourcehut.
> 
> There are a few small-ticket items that we would dearly welcome
> community assistance with.  This is just a draft of a draft, just to
> give you an idea of the scope.  No gigaprojects, just community scale:
> helping each other out.  That kind of low-budget efficiency seems to
> be a perfect match for SFC.
> 
> - For helping future overseers come on board, we'd love someone's help
>   to write refreshed SOP documentation about how things work and how
>   to fix problems.
> 
> - We could use more documentation for projects to help them come on
>   board, operate their share of the infrastructure, and easily leave
>   if they like.
> 
> - We might need a new security review and more tooling to manage
>   credentials and access.
> 
> - We could use help further automating the management of the new
>   buildbot system, and would love ever more build workers.
> 
> - Some projects operate extra infrastructure services on sourceware
>   that require occasional updates, which they would prefer to offload
>   to someone else.
> 
> These are only some ideas.  We'd love yours.  We can start tracking
> these on bugzilla, why not?
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/describecomponents.cgi?product=sourceware
> 
> We would especially love to hear from people who are able to oversee
> and/or carry out this kind of work.  If our application to the SFC
> succeeds, we need likeminded folks to help officially judge funding
> priorities.  We promise the SFC application & committee work would be
> as low-stakes and informal as possible.  Bradley and Daniel from the
> Conservancy have agreed to monitor this discussion and answer any
> questions about what the SFC can and cannot do to help us if we become
> an SFC member project.
> 
> Sourceware has been operating since 1998.  With your advice and help,
> we can keep hosting projects and their developers, comfortably and
> steadily, another few decades.  https://sourceware.org/mission.html
> 
> Chris Faylor <cgf@sourceware.org>
> Frank Eigler <fche@sourceware.org>
> Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
> 
> 
> (others *): We are reaching out to the 20 most active projects on
> Sourceware (binutils, bunsen, bzip2, cgen, cygwin, debugedit, dwz,
> elfutils, gcc, gccrs, gdb, glibc, insight, kawa, libabigail, libffi,
> newlib, sid, systemtap, valgrind) about this proposal to make sure
> nobody is caught unaware. And Sourceware is also responsible for
> preserving the history of another 40 projects which are either less
> active, have been archived or moved on.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available
  2022-09-08 19:16 ` SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available Daniel Pono Takamori
@ 2022-09-09 14:55   ` Karen M. Sandler
  2022-09-10 17:55     ` Karen M. Sandler
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Karen M. Sandler @ 2022-09-09 14:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list; +Cc: Frank Ch. Eigler, Daniel Pono Takamori

On 2022-09-08 15:16, Daniel Pono Takamori via Overseers wrote:

> We'd like to have a meeting where anyone can join and ask questions
> about the agreement or anything else about joining SFC. We'll be 
> hosting
> 3 calls to let community members join when is best for them: 15:00 UTC
> Friday, 18:00 UTC Saturday and 17:00 UTC Monday on BigBlueButton. We'll
> post the links to this mailing list right before the calls.

The first of these is starting in 5 minutes!

The link is here: https://bbb.sfconservancy.org/b/kar-lib-den-j5y

To join this meeting by phone, dial:
+1-718-247-9666
Then enter 83985 as the conference PIN number.

If you can't make this one, we're doing another 18:00 UTC Saturday and 
17:00 UTC Monday also on BigBlueButton.


And here are the links to the agreements:

>     https://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>     https://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.odt
> 
> We're in the middle of updating our template to improve it a little 
> bit,
> but there are no substantive changes. The most important section is
> building the governance section 6, for which the template has various
> suggested structures.


Karen M. Sandler
Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy
she/hers
__________
Become a Sustainer today! http://sfconservancy.org/sustainer/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available
  2022-09-09 14:55   ` Karen M. Sandler
@ 2022-09-10 17:55     ` Karen M. Sandler
  2022-09-10 22:32       ` SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes Mark Wielaard
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Karen M. Sandler @ 2022-09-10 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list

On 2022-09-09 10:55, Karen M. Sandler via Overseers wrote:
> On 2022-09-08 15:16, Daniel Pono Takamori via Overseers wrote:
> 
>> We'd like to have a meeting where anyone can join and ask questions
>> about the agreement or anything else about joining SFC. We'll be 
>> hosting
>> 3 calls to let community members join when is best for them: 15:00 UTC
>> Friday, 18:00 UTC Saturday and 17:00 UTC Monday on BigBlueButton. 
>> We'll
>> post the links to this mailing list right before the calls.

The second of these meetings is happening in about 5 minutes at the top 
of the hour!

You can join here:
https://bbb.sfconservancy.org/b/kar-yiq-pkx-amt

To join this meeting by phone, dial:
+1-718-247-9666
Then enter 27353 as the conference PIN number.

I am including the notes from the first one below.

If you can't make this one, we're doing another at 17:00 UTC Monday also 
on BigBlueButton.

> And here are the links to the agreements:
> 
>>     https://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.pdf
>>     https://sfconservancy.org/docs/sponsorship-agreement-template.odt
>> 
>> We're in the middle of updating our template to improve it a little 
>> bit,
>> but there are no substantive changes. The most important section is
>> building the governance section 6, for which the template has various
>> suggested structures.
> 

Rough Notes from previous meeting:

Meeting 15:00 UTC, September 9

SFC staff shared links to the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement template

Fiscal sponsorship agreement talks about the structure, what's the best 
way to describe it?
Concern: is defining the scope of the project difficult? There are 
legacy projects, etc
Projects hosted by Sourceware will not become SFC projects

     * may need to write this into the agreement

Sourceware is well resourced enough to bring more projects on

Discussion about longevity and succession of Sourceware
Making sure that governance of the project is independent from any 
company

Discussed possible people to join the leadership committee
Possibly anyone who has root should be on the committee?

SFC recommends reaching out personally to overseers who have been active 
over the last 10 years to make sure they've seen the discussion about 
joining SFC and if they'd like to be involved.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes
  2022-09-10 17:55     ` Karen M. Sandler
@ 2022-09-10 22:32       ` Mark Wielaard
  2022-09-12 16:34         ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Mark Wielaard @ 2022-09-10 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list

Here are the rough notes from the first two meetings.

The SFC will host another one at 17:00 UTC Monday also on BigBlueButton.
The link will be posted on the overseers mailinglist on Monday.

> Meeting 15:00 UTC, September 9
> 
> SFC staff shared links to the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement template
> 
> Fiscal sponsorship agreement talks about the structure, what's the best way
> to describe it?
> Concern: is defining the scope of the project difficult? There are legacy
> projects, etc
> Projects hosted by Sourceware will not become SFC projects
> 
>     * may need to write this into the agreement
> 
> Sourceware is well resourced enough to bring more projects on
> 
> Discussion about longevity and succession of Sourceware
> Making sure that governance of the project is independent from any company
> 
> Discussed possible people to join the leadership committee
> Possibly anyone who has root should be on the committee?
> 
> SFC recommends reaching out personally to overseers who have been active
> over the last 10 years to make sure they've seen the discussion about
> joining SFC and if they'd like to be involved.

Meeting 18:00 UTC September 10

Reached out to a few people personally who have a longtime involvment
in projects and/or sourceware to see if they would be interested in
joining the PLC

Do member projects talk to each other?

  Sometimes they do and there are a few mailing lists to do it but in
  practice there hasn't been that much cross-project chatter. Recently
  there was a great conversation amongst our projects about
  GiveUpGitHub.org.

  SFC will announce soon an in person event that may be a good venue
  for more of this

Could SFC help hire logo or web designers?

    Definitely, we've hired multiple people in these roles in the last
    few years and will continue to do so.

    We like to favor small companies or individuals who use software
    freedom tools, but have also hired larger companies.

Conflict of interest policy: it is long, how will that work out with
so many projects being hosted?
https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conflict-of-interest-policy.html

    The policy is really only an issue when the person is going to
    benefit financially from the project (or related situation)

    In practice this works out easily, conflicted parties simply
    recuse themselves from the relevant discussion

How do in kind donations work?

    Depending on the donation, we may need to track it on our books

    Charitable deductions are possible where helpful for companies

    Normally can evaluate logo placement or other sponsorship program

    Organizations could be encouraged to continue donating in-kind
    resources by formal recognition

Discussion about other fiscal sponsor options, what SFC offers and
what it doesn't, and different

    historical trajectories of projects that look for large amounts of
    funding vs. those who focus on long term survivability

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes
  2022-09-10 22:32       ` SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes Mark Wielaard
@ 2022-09-12 16:34         ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  2022-09-12 17:05           ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Pono Takamori @ 2022-09-12 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list; +Cc: Mark Wielaard

And here's the info for the last meeting, happening in ~25 minutes at 17:00
UTC.

https://bbb.sfconservancy.org/b/pon-bl3-2pp-lk9

To join this meeting by phone, dial:
+1-718-247-9666
Then enter 33966 as the conference PIN number.

Thanks Mark for the notes from the last meeting below.

See you soon!
-Pono


On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 12:32:00AM +0200, Mark Wielaard via Overseers wrote:
> Here are the rough notes from the first two meetings.
> 
> The SFC will host another one at 17:00 UTC Monday also on BigBlueButton.
> The link will be posted on the overseers mailinglist on Monday.
> 
> > Meeting 15:00 UTC, September 9
> > 
> > SFC staff shared links to the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement template
> > 
> > Fiscal sponsorship agreement talks about the structure, what's the best way
> > to describe it?
> > Concern: is defining the scope of the project difficult? There are legacy
> > projects, etc
> > Projects hosted by Sourceware will not become SFC projects
> > 
> >     * may need to write this into the agreement
> > 
> > Sourceware is well resourced enough to bring more projects on
> > 
> > Discussion about longevity and succession of Sourceware
> > Making sure that governance of the project is independent from any company
> > 
> > Discussed possible people to join the leadership committee
> > Possibly anyone who has root should be on the committee?
> > 
> > SFC recommends reaching out personally to overseers who have been active
> > over the last 10 years to make sure they've seen the discussion about
> > joining SFC and if they'd like to be involved.
> 
> Meeting 18:00 UTC September 10
> 
> Reached out to a few people personally who have a longtime involvment
> in projects and/or sourceware to see if they would be interested in
> joining the PLC
> 
> Do member projects talk to each other?
> 
>   Sometimes they do and there are a few mailing lists to do it but in
>   practice there hasn't been that much cross-project chatter. Recently
>   there was a great conversation amongst our projects about
>   GiveUpGitHub.org.
> 
>   SFC will announce soon an in person event that may be a good venue
>   for more of this
> 
> Could SFC help hire logo or web designers?
> 
>     Definitely, we've hired multiple people in these roles in the last
>     few years and will continue to do so.
> 
>     We like to favor small companies or individuals who use software
>     freedom tools, but have also hired larger companies.
> 
> Conflict of interest policy: it is long, how will that work out with
> so many projects being hosted?
> https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conflict-of-interest-policy.html
> 
>     The policy is really only an issue when the person is going to
>     benefit financially from the project (or related situation)
> 
>     In practice this works out easily, conflicted parties simply
>     recuse themselves from the relevant discussion
> 
> How do in kind donations work?
> 
>     Depending on the donation, we may need to track it on our books
> 
>     Charitable deductions are possible where helpful for companies
> 
>     Normally can evaluate logo placement or other sponsorship program
> 
>     Organizations could be encouraged to continue donating in-kind
>     resources by formal recognition
> 
> Discussion about other fiscal sponsor options, what SFC offers and
> what it doesn't, and different
> 
>     historical trajectories of projects that look for large amounts of
>     funding vs. those who focus on long term survivability

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes
  2022-09-12 16:34         ` Daniel Pono Takamori
@ 2022-09-12 17:05           ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  2022-09-12 19:09             ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Pono Takamori @ 2022-09-12 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list; +Cc: Mark Wielaard

Sorry about that folks, our BigBlueButton instance is having network issues
and we're looking at bringing it back up now.

Please join us on #conservancy on libera.chat or general@chat.sfconservancy.org
on XMPP in the meantime while we sort out the issues.

So sorry for the inconvenience!
-Pono

On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:34:57AM -0500, Daniel Pono Takamori via Overseers wrote:
> And here's the info for the last meeting, happening in ~25 minutes at 17:00
> UTC.
> 
> https://bbb.sfconservancy.org/b/pon-bl3-2pp-lk9
> 
> To join this meeting by phone, dial:
> +1-718-247-9666
> Then enter 33966 as the conference PIN number.
> 
> Thanks Mark for the notes from the last meeting below.
> 
> See you soon!
> -Pono
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 12:32:00AM +0200, Mark Wielaard via Overseers wrote:
> > Here are the rough notes from the first two meetings.
> > 
> > The SFC will host another one at 17:00 UTC Monday also on BigBlueButton.
> > The link will be posted on the overseers mailinglist on Monday.
> > 
> > > Meeting 15:00 UTC, September 9
> > > 
> > > SFC staff shared links to the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement template
> > > 
> > > Fiscal sponsorship agreement talks about the structure, what's the best way
> > > to describe it?
> > > Concern: is defining the scope of the project difficult? There are legacy
> > > projects, etc
> > > Projects hosted by Sourceware will not become SFC projects
> > > 
> > >     * may need to write this into the agreement
> > > 
> > > Sourceware is well resourced enough to bring more projects on
> > > 
> > > Discussion about longevity and succession of Sourceware
> > > Making sure that governance of the project is independent from any company
> > > 
> > > Discussed possible people to join the leadership committee
> > > Possibly anyone who has root should be on the committee?
> > > 
> > > SFC recommends reaching out personally to overseers who have been active
> > > over the last 10 years to make sure they've seen the discussion about
> > > joining SFC and if they'd like to be involved.
> > 
> > Meeting 18:00 UTC September 10
> > 
> > Reached out to a few people personally who have a longtime involvment
> > in projects and/or sourceware to see if they would be interested in
> > joining the PLC
> > 
> > Do member projects talk to each other?
> > 
> >   Sometimes they do and there are a few mailing lists to do it but in
> >   practice there hasn't been that much cross-project chatter. Recently
> >   there was a great conversation amongst our projects about
> >   GiveUpGitHub.org.
> > 
> >   SFC will announce soon an in person event that may be a good venue
> >   for more of this
> > 
> > Could SFC help hire logo or web designers?
> > 
> >     Definitely, we've hired multiple people in these roles in the last
> >     few years and will continue to do so.
> > 
> >     We like to favor small companies or individuals who use software
> >     freedom tools, but have also hired larger companies.
> > 
> > Conflict of interest policy: it is long, how will that work out with
> > so many projects being hosted?
> > https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conflict-of-interest-policy.html
> > 
> >     The policy is really only an issue when the person is going to
> >     benefit financially from the project (or related situation)
> > 
> >     In practice this works out easily, conflicted parties simply
> >     recuse themselves from the relevant discussion
> > 
> > How do in kind donations work?
> > 
> >     Depending on the donation, we may need to track it on our books
> > 
> >     Charitable deductions are possible where helpful for companies
> > 
> >     Normally can evaluate logo placement or other sponsorship program
> > 
> >     Organizations could be encouraged to continue donating in-kind
> >     resources by formal recognition
> > 
> > Discussion about other fiscal sponsor options, what SFC offers and
> > what it doesn't, and different
> > 
> >     historical trajectories of projects that look for large amounts of
> >     funding vs. those who focus on long term survivability

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

* Re: SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes
  2022-09-12 17:05           ` Daniel Pono Takamori
@ 2022-09-12 19:09             ` Daniel Pono Takamori
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Pono Takamori @ 2022-09-12 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Overseers mailing list; +Cc: Mark Wielaard

Thanks again for bearing with our network outage. The hybrid meeting was
surprisingly good! I've got the first 10 minutes of notes from IRC and the
BBB notes in a Pad here in case people want to review them: 

https://pad.sfconservancy.org/p/20220912-sourceware+sfc

We look forward to more public chats and thank you all for participating!
-Pono on behalf of Software Freedom Conservancy



On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 12:05:46PM -0500, Daniel Pono Takamori via Overseers wrote:
> Sorry about that folks, our BigBlueButton instance is having network issues
> and we're looking at bringing it back up now.
> 
> Please join us on #conservancy on libera.chat or general@chat.sfconservancy.org
> on XMPP in the meantime while we sort out the issues.
> 
> So sorry for the inconvenience!
> -Pono
> 
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 11:34:57AM -0500, Daniel Pono Takamori via Overseers wrote:
> > And here's the info for the last meeting, happening in ~25 minutes at 17:00
> > UTC.
> > 
> > https://bbb.sfconservancy.org/b/pon-bl3-2pp-lk9
> > 
> > To join this meeting by phone, dial:
> > +1-718-247-9666
> > Then enter 33966 as the conference PIN number.
> > 
> > Thanks Mark for the notes from the last meeting below.
> > 
> > See you soon!
> > -Pono
> > 
> > 
> > On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 12:32:00AM +0200, Mark Wielaard via Overseers wrote:
> > > Here are the rough notes from the first two meetings.
> > > 
> > > The SFC will host another one at 17:00 UTC Monday also on BigBlueButton.
> > > The link will be posted on the overseers mailinglist on Monday.
> > > 
> > > > Meeting 15:00 UTC, September 9
> > > > 
> > > > SFC staff shared links to the Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement template
> > > > 
> > > > Fiscal sponsorship agreement talks about the structure, what's the best way
> > > > to describe it?
> > > > Concern: is defining the scope of the project difficult? There are legacy
> > > > projects, etc
> > > > Projects hosted by Sourceware will not become SFC projects
> > > > 
> > > >     * may need to write this into the agreement
> > > > 
> > > > Sourceware is well resourced enough to bring more projects on
> > > > 
> > > > Discussion about longevity and succession of Sourceware
> > > > Making sure that governance of the project is independent from any company
> > > > 
> > > > Discussed possible people to join the leadership committee
> > > > Possibly anyone who has root should be on the committee?
> > > > 
> > > > SFC recommends reaching out personally to overseers who have been active
> > > > over the last 10 years to make sure they've seen the discussion about
> > > > joining SFC and if they'd like to be involved.
> > > 
> > > Meeting 18:00 UTC September 10
> > > 
> > > Reached out to a few people personally who have a longtime involvment
> > > in projects and/or sourceware to see if they would be interested in
> > > joining the PLC
> > > 
> > > Do member projects talk to each other?
> > > 
> > >   Sometimes they do and there are a few mailing lists to do it but in
> > >   practice there hasn't been that much cross-project chatter. Recently
> > >   there was a great conversation amongst our projects about
> > >   GiveUpGitHub.org.
> > > 
> > >   SFC will announce soon an in person event that may be a good venue
> > >   for more of this
> > > 
> > > Could SFC help hire logo or web designers?
> > > 
> > >     Definitely, we've hired multiple people in these roles in the last
> > >     few years and will continue to do so.
> > > 
> > >     We like to favor small companies or individuals who use software
> > >     freedom tools, but have also hired larger companies.
> > > 
> > > Conflict of interest policy: it is long, how will that work out with
> > > so many projects being hosted?
> > > https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conflict-of-interest-policy.html
> > > 
> > >     The policy is really only an issue when the person is going to
> > >     benefit financially from the project (or related situation)
> > > 
> > >     In practice this works out easily, conflicted parties simply
> > >     recuse themselves from the relevant discussion
> > > 
> > > How do in kind donations work?
> > > 
> > >     Depending on the donation, we may need to track it on our books
> > > 
> > >     Charitable deductions are possible where helpful for companies
> > > 
> > >     Normally can evaluate logo placement or other sponsorship program
> > > 
> > >     Organizations could be encouraged to continue donating in-kind
> > >     resources by formal recognition
> > > 
> > > Discussion about other fiscal sponsor options, what SFC offers and
> > > what it doesn't, and different
> > > 
> > >     historical trajectories of projects that look for large amounts of
> > >     funding vs. those who focus on long term survivability

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-09-12 19:09 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-08-30 18:03 proposing Sourceware as Software Freedom Conservancy member project Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-09-01 14:19 ` Elena Zannoni
2022-09-01 18:10   ` Christopher Faylor
2022-09-02 10:14   ` Mark Wielaard
2022-09-01 18:45 ` Corinna Vinschen
2022-09-01 18:54   ` Frank Ch. Eigler
2022-09-02 10:51   ` Mark Wielaard
2022-09-02 11:47 ` Mark Wielaard
2022-09-05 12:20 ` Dodji Seketeli
2022-09-08 19:16 ` SFC offers project membership to Sourceware; three video-chat discussion times with SFC available Daniel Pono Takamori
2022-09-09 14:55   ` Karen M. Sandler
2022-09-10 17:55     ` Karen M. Sandler
2022-09-10 22:32       ` SFC video-chat discussion meeting notes Mark Wielaard
2022-09-12 16:34         ` Daniel Pono Takamori
2022-09-12 17:05           ` Daniel Pono Takamori
2022-09-12 19:09             ` Daniel Pono Takamori

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).