On 2022-10-23 17:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html

On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the
services for the GNU Toolchain to the Linux Foundation IT under the auspices of
the Toolchain Infrastructure project (GTI) with fiscal sponsorship from the
OpenSSF and other major donors.

Noted, however, a list of signatories does not automatically confer
authority over any particular project.  Any participation from
overseers in moving projects to different infrastructure will require
clear approval from the individual projects themselves.

Also, the FSF, being the existing fiscal sponsor to these projects,
surely needs to review the formal agreements before we sunset our
infrastructural offerings to glibc, gcc, binutils, and gdb and hand
control of the projects' infrastructure over to a different entity.

We'd like to assure the communities that, when and if any individual
project formally expresses the decision of their developers to transfer
their services, we'll endeavor to make the move as smooth as possible.
Those projects that wish to stay will continue to receive the best
services that the overseers can offer, with the ongoing assistance of
Red Hat, the SFC, and, when relevant, the FSF tech team.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 09:27:26AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to block migration of
all sourceware assets to the LF IT, I don't have a stake on how they'd like
to handle this for sourceware.  I could however, as a member of TAC (and as
member of projects that have agreed to migrate to LF IT, i.e. gcc and glibc),
discuss with others the possibility of specific community volunteers being
given some amount of access to manage infrastructure.

Stop spreading FUD.  The "we" in my statement above, from October 13,
included fche, mjw, and myself.  You have no reason to be confused on
this subject.


Nope, I'm not spreading FUD, in fact that statement of yours is perfectly
consistent with what I've said: the blocker at the moment is that the
sourceware overseers have refused to hand over the server *in its entirety*
to LF IT, not that any projects themselves have refused to move their
services to LF IT.  I don't doubt that the overseers will help in smooth
migration for projects that eventually state that they wish to move over.

Your initial implication was that the unreasonable overseers would hold
all projects hostage on our current infrastructure.

Absolutely not, you and I have had multiple exchanges on this list so far and I'd have trusted you to take my statement above in the correct context. I did not even negate your statement when you stated that the overseers would support seamless migration of services over to LF IT and in fact supplemented[1] by saying that the transition would likely take years.

Now you've "clarified"
that point by implying that we've been approached to transfer the server
"in its entirety" to the LF and have unreasonably refused.

You literally have an email on the list with the subject like "Moving sourceware to the Linux Foundation? no thanks".

Both of those are FUD.  You're either intentionally trying to muddy the
waters or you're just confused.  I'd submit that in either case you should
just think about shutting up.  You have no special authority to speak for
the GTI TAC and your increasingly hostile messages are not helping anyone.

It's funny that you're asking me to shut up and also implying that my messages are hostile.

Sid

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018987.html

Reply via email to