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 > 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.
Lets try to make this a little less adversarial. This doesn't have to be a clash of communities where there can be only one. Yes, the way this was introduced caused things to become very contentious. But at Cauldron we also agreed to bring this proposal to the overseers list and discuss it together. Of course we can coexist. Lets do a reset. Now that the plans are more public there will hopefully be less opportunity for speculation and misunderstandings. But there are still some unclear details and people have had various (unanswered) questions. It would be good to get answers to the questions people asked on overseers. And it would be great if the GTI TAC members discussed how they see the technical details of various services on the overseers list. We can then file specific sourceware infrastructure bugs to track the various technical needs from a community perspective. And hopefully we can then, as one community, take up shared responsibility of how to move things forward together. Cheers, Mark
