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/p
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 que
* 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 altern
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
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 con
Hi -
> [...] Where was a statement from key members of the GNU Toolchain
> projects -- the people who actually use the services and
> infrastructure on a day to day basis for their participation in the
> GNU Toolchain projects -- asking for an alternative proposal? When
> were they allowed to part
Hi -
> [...] As for the rest, it really is a question on whether all of
> sourceware will in the end be migrated over to LF, it's for the
> remaining projects to decide. If we indeed have all projects on
> board [...]
"we" do not. That option was taken off the table weeks ago. For that
matter
On 2022-10-06 18:57, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
[...] so that we continue to have them involved in the technical
direction of GNU toolchain infrastructure? [...]
"continue"? If the nature & degree of involvement we had so far in
the LF/GTI process is representative of the future, I'm not sure I
Hi,
On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 17:37 -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 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
> implementi
Hi -
> [...] so that we continue to have them involved in the technical
> direction of GNU toolchain infrastructure? [...]
"continue"? If the nature & degree of involvement we had so far in
the LF/GTI process is representative of the future, I'm not sure I can
in good faith ask anyone to fund o
On 2022-10-06 17:36, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
[...] Or alternatively, "sourceware overseers" could become a body
that maintains sourceware and is able to get funding through SFC for
its activities?
Great idea -- and this is roughly what's happening. This "body"
consisting of key individuals has
On Oct 4, 2022, "Frank Ch. Eigler via Libc-alpha"
wrote:
> What aspects of the gnu toolchain are open to being funded via the
> LF/GTI proposal, -other than- the vast majority of the funds being
> redirected to its own managed services infrastructure?
Hear, hear,
I see a number of people, mys
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 G
Hi -
> [...] Or alternatively, "sourceware overseers" could become a body
> that maintains sourceware and is able to get funding through SFC for
> its activities?
Great idea -- and this is roughly what's happening. This "body"
consisting of key individuals has invited other folks interested in
h
On 2022-10-06 16:02, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I had in fact missed the websites mention, sorry I overreacted to your
comment. In that case, I don't know if the GNU websites are actually part
of this proposal.
No worries. It seems everybody is somewhat unclear on the details of
this proposal. Makin
On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>...But it would be really nice to hear directly from the Linux
>Foundation and the OpenSSF about what exactly they are proposing, which
>parts of the proposal are mandatory, which can be mixed and matched,
>and how they see this workin
Hi Siddhesh,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 03:10:35PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar via Overseers
wrote:
> > We do take this proposal, and all other suggestions people make about
> > the sourceware infrastructure, seriously, but a lot of details of this
> > proposal are still unclear. We are trying to get
On 2022-10-04 15:05, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I did indeed. Both the proposal and these minutes mention migrating
websites without mentioning any specifics. Knowing which websites are
meant and why they need migration is useful information.
The FSF tech team is helping us coordinating things on over
Hi Siddhesh,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> > > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
> > > scope creep o
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
>> > scope creep of the GTI proposal
On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
scope creep of the GTI proposal.
Who is doing the false speculation? Do you have a mailing list link?
It
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
>scope creep of the GTI proposal.
Who is doing the false speculation? Do you have a mailing list link?
It would be interesting to know who's got it wrong.
Hi -
> > I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM
> > with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure
> > is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator.
>
> I suppose that's a difference in our perception then. I think of
> infrastructu
On 2022-10-04 10:41, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
I'm afraid I don't understand then what the point of comparing to LLVM
with respect to competitiveness or freedom was. AIUI, infrastructure
is an enabler, not really a competitive differentiator.
I suppose that's a difference in our perception then.
Hi -
> > > I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded
> > > compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on
> > > that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU
> > > toolchain without affecting its core governance.
> >
On 2022-10-04 10:19, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
I don't see a risk to freedom. The GNU toolchain is quite underfunded
compared to llvm/clang and IMO it's a major risk to maintain status quo on
that front. The GTI opens new avenues for funding aspects of the GNU
toolchain without affecting its core
Hi -
> > > [...] I think the LF proposal is the best long term way forward for
> > > the GNU toolchain projects to remain competitive *and* Free. [...]
> >
> > Can you elaborate what risks in terms of competitiveness or freedom
> > you foresee with the status quo? This is the first I recall hear
On 2022-10-04 10:01, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
[...] I think the LF proposal is the best long term way forward for
the GNU toolchain projects to remain competitive *and* Free. [...]
Can you elaborate what risks in terms of competitiveness or freedom
you foresee with the status quo? This i
Hi -
> [...] I think the LF proposal is the best long term way forward for
> the GNU toolchain projects to remain competitive *and* Free. [...]
Can you elaborate what risks in terms of competitiveness or freedom
you foresee with the status quo? This is the first I recall hearing
of this concern.
On 2022-10-02 16:47, Mark Wielaard via Overseers wrote:
I've published the current GTI TAC meeting minutes to the glibc website:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/gti-tac/index.html
The slides from the LF IT are a good overview:
https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/gti-tac/LF%20IT%20Core%20Projects
.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:38:02PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha wrote:
> On 9/27/22 16:08, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > "The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project"
> > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018896.html
>
> I've publis
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:05 PM David Edelsohn wrote:
> Carlos O'Donell and I are proud to announce and provide more detail about
> the GNU Toolchain Infrastructure project.
>
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018896.html
>
> Thanks, David
>
The minu
Carlos O'Donell and I are proud to announce and provide more detail about
the GNU Toolchain Infrastructure project.
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018896.html
Thanks, David
33 matches
Mail list logo
