From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 582013858C54 for ; Sun, 18 Sep 2022 19:17:37 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 582013858C54 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=sourceware.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cgf.cx X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx 1C1007E796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,INVALID_DATE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 spammy=Tokens not available. Resent-From: Christopher Faylor Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2022 15:17:35 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <20220918191735.cyyv2uobxcv3vunr@cgf.cx> Resent-To: overseers@sourceware.org Date: Sunt, 18 Sep 2022 15:42:38 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Moving sourceware to the Linux Foundation? No thanks. References: <87ler4qcmo.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Mutt-References: X-Mutt-Fcc: /share/cgf/record Message-ID: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INVALID_DATE,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 List-Id: Just a heads up to the people reading this list: A couple of GNU project affiliated folks have been soliciting the Linux Foundation to "take over" sourceware. The talks have been going on in relative secrecy for more than a year. The project is officially mentioned here: https://linuxfoundation.org/join-project/ (search for GNU toolchain) This proposal is for more than the fiscal sponsorship offered by the SFC, as seen in the overseers mailing list. The SFC proposal keeps the current sourceware infrastructure and administration while offering opportunities for fiscal sponsorship to help fund new sourceware infrastructure projects. The LF proposal, on the other hand, is for a wholesale move of the sourceware domain and services to a system wholly owned and controlled by Linux Foundation IT. I can't personally support the LF plan and, if the move happens as it's being proposed, will no longer be contributing my time to sourceware. I did endorse this move to the LF when I first heard about it in April but I've since withdrawn that support and removed myself from the "GTI" team which you can see at the project page above. My reasons: 0) It is dubious to me that the organizers have the authority to represent "sourceware" or even their own communities in any official capacity. 1) The non-public, compartmentalized approach employed by the organizers for gaining what they call "consensus" seemed to be counter to the way things are usually handled in FOSS projects. Until very recently, the organizers seemed to be intent on minimizing public disclosure and discussion of this endeavor until they can make a big reveal. To me, that seems wrong for something this important. Moving sourceware is a huge deal and I think there should be *public* discussion with as many people as possible. 2) Private email to select individuals seemed to focus on only the "GNU" people who use sourceware even though project-count-wise GNU/FSF projects are in the minority here. Popular projects like Cygwin were not represented in these private discussions even though the Cygwin project would be severely impacted by any move. I guess that makes sense for a "GNU Toolchain Initiative" but it doesn't make sense when you're talking about moving *all* projects hosted by sourceware.org to a differently (and more restrictively) run platform. 3) LF IT's proposal for how services would be provided to this new platform seemed questionable. IMO, if the move happens, we'd be giving up too much autonomy. Administrative decisions would require a committee vote, asking LF IT for a statement of work. I think that is guaranteed to add frustrating red tape and delay. Sourceware could also be forced to use proprietary software for things like mailing lists - which is something that should be an anathema to FOSS projects. I was also not confident that LF IT would be dedicated to a seamless, minimum-downtime transition. I think there could be a noticeable impact on project development during any sourceware transition. --- If you're satisfied in the way sourceware has been run and are confident that the people running it know what they're doing, and have your best interests at heart, then please speak up. If you don't really know what's going on here and don't want to take my word for it that something smells fishy then *please* listen carefully to to the proposal if/when this is finally publicly announced. I would not be surprised if alarms start going off in your head when you hear what's being proposed - like they did for me. For those who don't know, I've been helping keep sourceware running since I was at Cygnus (and then Red Hat) starting in 1999. I've continued to offer my volunteer services since I left Red Hat in 2003. cgf