From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10AC63858C2D; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 15:58:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 10AC63858C2D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org Received: from linux-libre.fsfla.org ([209.51.188.54]:58786 helo=free.home) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oiHe2-0007E3-SU; Tue, 11 Oct 2022 11:58:15 -0400 Received: from livre (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by free.home (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 29BFw6eU570191 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:58:06 -0300 From: Alexandre Oliva To: Mark Wielaard Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Overseers mailing list , gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Organization: Free thinker, not speaking for the GNU Project References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <20221004171007.oc2ot6eu6l24aipn@cgf.cx> <05b0f7fa-7077-5a8b-0c2f-dfb3068dd10f@gotplt.org> <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> Errors-To: aoliva@lxoliva.fsfla.org Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2022 12:58:05 -0300 In-Reply-To: <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> (Mark Wielaard's message of "Fri, 07 Oct 2022 10:57:34 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Oct 7, 2022, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Siddhesh, > On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 17:07 -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> Could you clarify in what way you think the *scope* got changed >> between >> the private communications and the proposal that actually got posted? > Given that they were private I can only talk for myself: > https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/Yz9dZWC9QIv+r4LH@elastic.org/T/#m22a52506bc116dbcb10c8cbfa8ed89510f4dc1b7 > But various people listed as "key stakeholders consulted" said they > either didn't know anything about this, they were contacted but never > got any details, or were only told about parts of it. That makes me very concerned. Negotiating a community agreement in secrecy is worrysome to boot, but giving different stakeholders different views of what the agreement supposedly amounts to is a political trick normally used to push an agreement through that would have been rejected by a majority, even if for different reasons. By presenting different views to different parties, and misrepresenting their support for those partial views as support for the whole they didn't even know about, one might put enough pressure to persuade other parties to drop their objections, if they believe the claimed broad support. Even I got presented two very different views of the proposal by two of its lead proponents, with different motivations (which is reasonable) but factually conflicting commitments (which is not). This all taken together makes me conclude that the alleged support for the proposal, claimed by its lead proponents, is not something that can be counted on, or taken for granted. It needs to be double-checked by circulating publicly a proposal encompassing everything that the proposal entails, and then seeing whether it's actually acceptable as a whole. Given the chosen strategy, I suspect it won't be. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about