The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

David Edelsohn
Tue Oct 11 17:14:50 GMT 2022

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:00 PM Alexandre Oliva via Gcc <>

> On Oct  7, 2022, Mark Wielaard <> wrote:
> > Hi Siddhesh,
> > On Thu, 2022-10-06 at 17:07 -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >> Could you clarify in what way you think the *scope* got changed
> >> between
> >> the private communications and the proposal that actually got posted?
> > Given that they were private I can only talk for myself:
> >
> > But various people listed as "key stakeholders consulted" said they
> > either didn't know anything about this, they were contacted but never
> > got any details, or were only told about parts of it.
> That makes me very concerned.
> Negotiating a community agreement in secrecy is worrysome to boot, but
> giving different stakeholders different views of what the agreement
> supposedly amounts to is a political trick normally used to push an
> agreement through that would have been rejected by a majority, even if
> for different reasons.  By presenting different views to different
> parties, and misrepresenting their support for those partial views as
> support for the whole they didn't even know about, one might put enough
> pressure to persuade other parties to drop their objections, if they
> believe the claimed broad support.

The "Sourceware as SFC member project proposal" has been negotiated in more
secrecy than the GTI proposal.  The "Sourceware" proposal was created
without input or support from key members of any of the GNU Toolchain
projects (GCC, GLIBC, GDB or Binutils).  The GTI proposal has been
circulated and socialized among the GNU Toolchain project leadership, GNU
Toolchain project Release Managers, key developers, active members of
"Overseers" and various stakeholders, including the FSF.

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 participate in the
preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit?
All of the people with "skin in the game" who actively depend on the
services have been included and updated at each step of developing GTI, and
their feedback has helped shape the proposal.

> Even I got presented two very different views of the proposal by two of
> its lead proponents, with different motivations (which is reasonable)
> but factually conflicting commitments (which is not).

That is your assertion and accusation without any evidence.  Another
interpretation is that you didn't understand or you misinterpreted the
conversations.  Did you try to clarify this before making public

> This all taken together makes me conclude that the alleged support for
> the proposal, claimed by its lead proponents, is not something that can
> be counted on, or taken for granted.  It needs to be double-checked by
> circulating publicly a proposal encompassing everything that the
> proposal entails, and then seeing whether it's actually acceptable as a
> whole.  Given the chosen strategy, I suspect it won't be.
> We appreciate everyone's opinion on this topic.

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, and have
not used private conversations as public debating points nor for
divisive purposes.. I believe that speaks for itself.

Thanks, David

More information about the Gdb mailing list