Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

Christopher Faylor cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@gcc.gnu.org
Sun Oct 23 21:59:11 GMT 2022


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.   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.

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.



More information about the Gdb mailing list