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 118A93858D28 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 09:51:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 118A93858D28 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 (deer0x0b.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D2BD3000462; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 11:51:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by reform (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8AF252E822C9; Thu, 29 Sep 2022 11:51:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 11:51:54 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: Overseers mailing list Cc: Carlos O'Donell Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3033.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_SHORT,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 Carlos, Thanks for describing your proposal publicly. It will take some time to deconstruct it to see how we can mix-and-match the different parts. But I really like our approach of creating a sourceware infrastructure bug for each separate concern to see how we can resolve it. For now I just wanted to comment in this part which I think caused some confusion and might have caused the impression some people were working against each other. On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 03:59:32PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell via Overseers wrote: > The key stakeholders of the GNU Toolchain community have been > proactively briefed and included in community conversations during > the process of developing this proposal with incorporation of their > feedback. The key stakeholders consulted include GNU Toolchain > project leadership, GNU Toolchain project release managers, GNU > Toolchain project core developers, major vendors, active Sourceware > / Overseers administrators, and both John Sullivan and Zoë Kooyman > of the Free Software Foundation. Now that I have talked to some of these people I think something went wrong in the feedback loop. I think several people, me included, didn't know what parts of their feedback was incorporated or not and might have had a different understanding of how the proposal changed over time and/or which parts of the proposals they had agreed to or what others had been told. Or even if these proposals were still a thing, because after initial contact there was no more communication. Just speaking for myself when you contacted me at the start of the year, I thought we agreed on the following feedback: - We use the name GNU Toolchain Infrastructure because that is more popular and recognizable, but this really is about all of sourceware. Only later did I realize this is confusing and we should just talk about sourceware as a Free Software hosting project and not single out a few projects. This also helped when we started talking to the SFC and FSF because it made clear we didn't want to influence or control any of projects receiving infrastructure support. - If we are going to seek additional funding for sourceware, which I didn't believe was really necessary at that point, we need a fiscal sponsor that is a 501(c)3 public charity to keep the community in control instead of any potential sponsors. That is why we are now in the process of becoming a SFC member project. - This needs to be a public and open discussion with a public technical roadmap. Which is why we had those public roadmap discussions and why we now have builder.sourceware.org, upgraded patchwork.sourceware.org, inbox.sourceware.org, the sr.ht/~sourceware mirror, etc. - It needs to be fully free software, I won't join a groups.io "list" or use google meet/docs or use github, etc. Which is why there is so much enthousiasm now for setting up a BBB server. Hope that helps explain how we seemed to have ended up with different sets of proposals for the future of sourceware which we now are trying to combine again. Cheers, Mark