Working together and gaining trust

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 13, 2026, Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> wrote:

> They don't need to become one single decision-making body, they can
> certainly keep their autonomy. But their core values and their
> infrastructure needs are so similar that it makes sense to share some
> of it (see below).

Inasmuchas it doesn't curtail their autonomy.

>> > Individuals can cross these
>> > boundaries and be part of multiple communities.
>> 
>> Sure, but how is this relevant to this conversation?

> Because I believe that, people, is how you share. e.g. gcc and glibc
> are people, some of these same people were delegated by their
> communities to setup some shared infrastructure for these projects to
> use. The leadership of Sourceware comes from these same
> people. Technically they might be separate organisations, but they are
> family.

No problem with sharing where that makes sense.  The making sense,
however, encopasses respecting each collective's software freedom,
especially when the involved collectives are devoted to advancing
software freedom.

I still don't see the connection you were getting at, though.
Individual's belonging to multiple communities does not alleviate SaaSS.

>> It still makes me uncomfortable to be in a situation in which a service
>> provider can say 'no', and then our only recourse is to move our
>> infrastructure elsewhere.

> Sure, but not all "service providers" are the same.

*nod*

> If you see Sourceware/SFC as a separate service provider/organisation
> you can rely on their official agreement to provide you with Free
> Software "solutions". We will go out of our way to put things into
> separate VMs or run them in containers under your control. If say gcc
> and glibc really cannot agree upon sharing a service we will try to
> make sure you get separate VMs for them. And I think you can get
> similar guarantees from the FSF tech-team for example. The Sourceware
> PLC and the FSF tech-team even share "leadership" positions.

This is all great.

My dream scenario would be for Sourceware to become some sort of
pipeline in which new projects that need hosting services can find
freedom-respecting hosting that are so respectful of their autonomy
that, when they're ready to graduate to self hosting, they don't even
need to interrupt the services, because Sourceware will ahve it all
figured out to enable live unsharing and migration of VMs/containers.

> But I also believe that in
> some cases it isn't just "puts on a friendly face".

*nod*

> I believe that we
> can put in place some minimal guarantees that show communities and
> entities working together are in fact friendly.

Those are nice ot have, but most young projects wouldn't be in a
position to enforce the offer of any such guarantees, though, in case...

> And that it matters
> which people are in a leadership position.

... an unfortunate (hostile?) change of leadership turns things sour.

Depending, for your own peace of mind, on having friends in leadership
positions where your stuff is hosted is a sign that you're missing some
essential freedom.

That said, having freedom *and* friends makes for something even better
than just peace of mind ;-)

> Sorry for using hash words like dividing communities.

No worries.

> I really do mean that I like our communities to feel more like one
> with a shared mission and a shared goal of Software Freedom.

I see.  Well, we've got GNU ;-) so I sort of get the feeling.

GNU doesn't cover all of Sourceware though.

We've got the Free Software Movement, but maybe that's too broad.

> I do honestly believe
> that if the communities believe they are sharing control over their
> (shared) infrastructure they cannot fall into the SaaSS trap.

You're probably right about that.

What seems to be missing in that reasoning is that sharing control may
become a trap not to the provider, but to each other, in case a
project's evolving needs and preferences lead them to make different
choices from the other rpojects.

Then, having to share infrastructure may become a power struggle between
them, whereas ease to split the sharing (with or without moving) so that
whoever wants to take a different path is free to do so removes that
potential conflict while recognizing and reinforcing autonomy.

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/
Free Software Activist     FSFLA co-founder     GNU Toolchain Engineer
Learn the truth about Richard Stallman at https://stallmansupport.org/