On 2022-10-06 16:12, Christopher Faylor via Overseers wrote:
The silence from the proponents of this project is puzzling. I wonder if this means there are more non-public negotiations going on somewhere, leaving the community out of the loop.
The proponents of this project are members of the GNU toolchain communities. We approached the LF with the permission of the FSF to explore infrastructure funding solutions that would work for our communities. The proposal has been made in response to our request, so we need to tell them what we need and not the other way around.
Also as I responded to Mark, the technical details of the transition are the responsibility of the GTI TAC (which you were invited to be member of and you declined) and not the LF IT, although they'd be the ones implementing and maintaining it.
We're at that stage at the moment where we look for consensus from the project communities so that we understand if we can move all of sourceware to LF IT or if we need both to coexist somehow.
Once we have a direction, we talk about what that transition would look like and ask questions accordingly. Are there services that you absolutely cannot move to LF IT and why? Why would you support (or oppose) porting the wiki to something like readthedocs backed by a git repo?
I respect your outright rejection of the proposal because at least it is clear that you don't have any stake in its fine tuning.
For everyone else, it's a proposal. If there are changes you'd like to see in it, which will result in it being acceptable for you, please feel free to convey that. If you think it is unnecessary for your project and that sourceware in its current state and vision is sufficient for your needs, please state that clearly too.
Sid
