Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi David,

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:14:50PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> an alternative proposal? When were they allowed to participate in the
> preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit?

It wasn't really meant as an alternative proposal. And tt shouldn't be
in conflict with finding alternative sources of funding, creating a
technical advisory committee or having some managed services. And it
is a about having a public discussion.

- Sourceware roadmap discussions
  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
- Joining Software Freedom Conservancy as member project proposal
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018802.html
- Full Sourceware SFC application text
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018804.html
- Public SFC video chat meeting notes
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018837.html
- Cauldron discussion notes and chat logs
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018849.html

> Those of us working on the GTI proposal have approached it with good
> intentions and engaged everyone in good faith.  We have not made statements
> maligning the motivations and intentions of those with different opinions,
> implying nefarious motives, nor making baseless accusations.  We have been
> open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings

Then lets just let the past be the past. Now that the proposal is
public lets discuss it publicly. There have been various question
about the details on the overseers list. Lets just discuss those and
see how we can move forward.

Cheers,

Mark

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Alexandre Oliva via Gcc]

On Oct 11, 2022, David Edelsohn  wrote:

> open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings

Not useful when potential objectors are kept in the dark about the whole
thing.

> and have not used private conversations as public debating points nor for
> divisive purposes

The public claims of broad support used to put pressure for objectors to
give in seem to fit this pattern you deny, if not so much in seeding the
divide created by the then-secret proposal, but in bridging it.

The very purpose of private conversations was claimed by proponents of
the conversation as something to the effect of avoiding objections.

As for purporting key decisions as if in the hands of an advisory
committee, while the final decisions would rest in the hands of another
body whose members would be effectively buying the projects on the
cheap...

All of that, too, speaks for itself.


Anyway, this is all besides the point.  Whether or not there are
nefarious purposes behind it is besides the point.  The key point I
raise is that most people would support and accept something desirable
offered to them at no charge, but many might not upon finding that
there's a very steep price involved in the transaction.  There's no
evidence whatsoever that the costs have been conveyed along with the
dreams to the supposed supporters, so we'd better not take that alleged
support for granted.  The whole process was structured in a certain way,
explicitly for the purpose of sidelining objections.  That does not
inspire the very trust that would be required to agree to turn over
control over our infrastructure.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://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 

Re: How to get started with the contribution

[David Edelsohn via Gcc]

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 1:43 AM zunzarrao deore via Gcc 
wrote:

> Respected Sir/ Mam ,
> I am Zunzarrao Deore, a computer science undergrad. I have just entered my
> second year at D.Y. Patil college of engineering, Pune. I am new to open
> source contribution but I am well aware of programming languages like C++,
> Python, html and CSS also I have moderate  knowledge of Data Structures and
> Algorithms.
> I would like to contribute to your organizations but could you tell me how
> to get started ?
> Hoping to hear from you soon.
>

Thanks for your interest in GCC.  Welcome!

A good place to start is the GCC Wiki Getting Started page:
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/#Getting_Started_with_GCC_Development

David Malcolm has written a wonderful introduction to GCC for newcomers:
https://gcc-newbies-guide.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

and browse other recent answers to similar questions in the archives
of this mailing list.

Thanks, David


> Regards
> Zunzarrao.
>

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Florian Weimer via Gcc]

* Mark Wielaard via Overseers:

> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:14:50PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> an alternative proposal? When were they allowed to participate in the
>> preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit?
>
> It wasn't really meant as an alternative proposal. And tt shouldn't be
> in conflict with finding alternative sources of funding, creating a
> technical advisory committee or having some managed services. And it
> is a about having a public discussion.
>
> - Sourceware roadmap discussions
>   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

Overseers was a hidden list until recently:



I'm pointing this out to show how difficult it is to build public
consensus.  You might think you are doing it, but the view from the
outside is probably quite different.

Thanks,
Florian

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Jonathan Corbet]

Mark Wielaard  writes:

> Then lets just let the past be the past. Now that the proposal is
> public lets discuss it publicly. There have been various question
> about the details on the overseers list. Lets just discuss those and
> see how we can move forward.

Along those lines, I asked a few questions back in September:

  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018906.html

They seem relevant for anybody wanting to understand this proposal, and
the answers should be at the fingertips of the people putting it
together.  Any chance the rest of us could be enlightened?

Thanks,

jon

Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[David Edelsohn via Gcc]

We're excited to post a statement of support for the direction we're moving
with the infrastructure for the GNU Toolchain:
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html We look
forward to supporting the GTI TAC and community to work through the
technical details of the proposal to use LF IT services.

Thanks,
David and Carlos

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Florian,

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 03:18:55PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Mark Wielaard via Overseers:
> > And it is a about having a public discussion.
> >
> > - Sourceware roadmap discussions
> >   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
> 
> Overseers was a hidden list until recently:
> 
> 

Right, it wasn't advertised, but it was public:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220826033101/https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/overseers

There were a couple of lists that were public, but not advertised,
which changed when we setup our public-inbox instance:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/ywjuv4e0i01sw...@wildebeest.org/

This was in part because we also handle account request on
overseers. It felt like a good idea to not make it easy for search
engines archive those. We now have a new (private, not archived)
account-requests list for that.

> I'm pointing this out to show how difficult it is to build public
> consensus.  You might think you are doing it, but the view from the
> outside is probably quite different.

Yes, I certainly see your point. But we did also post to the 20 most
active sourceware project lists about some proposals. And some of the
posts about the roadmap and the discussion about joining the
conservancy even made it to new sites like lwn:

Sourceware – GNU Toolchain Infrastructure roadmap
https://lwn.net/Articles/898655/
Sourceware seeking support from the Software Freedom Conservancy
https://lwn.net/Articles/906502/

And as the archives show we did publicly discuss things and actually
answered any questions people had:

- Joining Software Freedom Conservancy as member project proposal
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018802.html
- Full Sourceware SFC application text
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018804.html
- Public SFC video chat meeting notes
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018837.html
- Cauldron discussion notes and chat logs
  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018849.html

I really liked some of these discussions. Hopefully in the future we
can do quarterly sourceware BBB video chats about any infrastructure
issues people/projects have.

Cheers,

Mark