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

[Zack Weinberg]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2026, at 11:27 AM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> Please review past threads on this topic.

I have.

> The decision was explicitly *not* arrived at at any Cauldron

I never said the Cauldron was the venue for the off-list meetings.

All the past threads constantly refer to conversations which did not
happen on this mailing list, and documents which were not posted to
this mailing list.  I don't know, nor do I *care*, exactly where
they did happen.  All I care about is that the conversations should
have happened right here and the documents - not links - should have
been posted here.

No decision on this topic is legitimate as long as it cannot be fully
reviewed by asynchronous-only community members and/or external stake-
holders by reviewing the libc-alpha mailing list archives *and nothing
else*.  Presenting summaries of external conversations is not enough.
This is why I said you need to start over.

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

I did check the archives.

In <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2026-January/174676.html>
you said "we did the groundwork" and posted a link to
<https://cti.coretoolchain.dev/projects/enum.html>.  *Only* text
posted to this mailing list counts, so I did not review the linked
document.  (To be clear, I'm being utterly inflexible about
this because the mailing list archive is an *archive*.  We can count
on what's in the mailing list archive staying the same for decades
into the future.  No such guarantee exists for documents posted on
external sites.)

In <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2026-February/175196.html>,
and <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2026-February/175232.html>
you expressed a personal lack of trust in the "overseers" group.  It may
well be that this is a deal-breaker for you personally -- that there's
*nothing* the overseers could do to regain your trust -- but that's still
a personal opinion, which the *community* must balance against other
people's personal lack of trust in the Linux Foundation.  (Speaking for
myself alone, back in Jan 2026 I had no particular reason *not* to trust
the LF and its funders, but today I very much *do not* trust them, on
account of their embrace of the LLM bubble and its adjacent hard-right
political advocacy groups.) You said at the bottom of that message

> I think we've addressed all concerns other than the "I don't like the LF",
> which I don't think we can address.

so here's the thing: Because both sourceware and LF have vocal groups who
don't trust them, I don't think distrust of sourceware, by itself, can
possibly produce consensus for a move *to* LF hosting.  So we have to go
back to the "other concerns", and that's the stuff that has not actually
been discussed on libc-alpha.  If you think it will help, I'd be willing to
agree that we *cannot reach consensus* on which organization is a better
long-term steward, therefore when you start the discussion over from
scratch, that particular aspect of the issue does not need to be revisited.

Follow-ups to 2026-February/175232.html were entirely about Alexandre
Oliva's distaste for "SaaSS", which only he seems to understand what
that even *is*, so I'm willing to declare that aspect of the older
conversations unproductive and not to be revisited again either.

I do not see any other replies by you to my 2026 January message in the
archives.  If I've missed something, please point me at it.

zw