Meeting Minutes - Office Hours for CTI - 2026-08-28

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 2026-09-04 11:12, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, at 10:47 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> On 2026-09-02 05:30, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 12:19:41PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>>>>    * Discussions will start in earnest on Monday, including updating
>>>>      libc-alpha with updated proposals for feedback.
>>>
>>> Lets deal with the objections and feedback on the previous proposal
>>> first. Zoë Kooyman wrote a good high-level summary:
>>> https://inbox.sourceware.org/libc-alpha/7021a9fb-2476-463c-8eab-a4e254d93df2@fsf.org/
>>
>> I didn't see anything in that email other than rehashing of points we
>> (the glibc community) have already discussed in the past.
> ...
>> No, the glibc community has already made a decision on this.
> 
> The glibc community has *not* made a decision on this.  Only a
> subset of the glibc community who are able to meet face to face
> has made a decision.

Please review past threads on this topic.  The decision was explicitly 
*not* arrived at at any Cauldron; we've had pretty mucn all active 
developers chime in in the past.  There have been a couple of objections 
but a significant majority has chimed in favour, especially those who 
have been involved in community operations on a day to day basis in 
recent years.

> The only legitimate venue for decision-making by the entire glibc
> community is *this mailing list*.  Until the *entire conversation*
> leading up to a decision regarding a potential move is conducted
> *on this mailing list*, no legitimate decision has been made.
> 
> I will continue to oppose the move on procedural grounds until its
> proponents start the discussion over, from scratch, and conduct it
> *exclusively* on this mailing list.  No more back channels.  No more
> face to face meetings.  No more synchronous meetings of any kind.
> Only emails to this mailing list.

I'm sorry but this has happened, please check the email archives.

> Additionally, the group advocating the move to LF infrastructure has
> never adequately explained their motivations to the community as a
> whole.  In my previous message on this subject[1], I said
> 
>> A big disruptive change like transferring hosting to an entirely
>> different provider requires a big reason.  It may well be that there
>> are excellent reasons, technical or otherwise, why a move off of
>> sourceware is a really good idea.  Please!  Explain those reasons.
>> Be candid.  Be detailed.  Let the rest of us understand your thinking.
>> Because right now, knowing only what I know, it seems to me that the
>> move is *unnecessary*.

You asked to be candid and I did respond to you then, candidly.  Please 
check the archives!

> I did get some concrete responses to that query, but none of the stated
> reasons struck me as adequate to justify a big disruptive change.
> In fact, all of the issues mentioned struck me as *easier* to address
> incrementally, while remaining on the existing infrastructure.
> (I regret not having followed up to say so at the time.)  It remains my
> opinion that the proposed move is unnecessary, and I will continue to
> oppose it on practical grounds until its proponents provide - to this
> mailing list - reasons which justify the disruption *and* which cannot
> be addressed more easily by incremental changes on the current
> infrastructure.
This suggests that you disagree on principle, not on procedure, which is 
fine.

Sid