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

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Sep  6, 2026, "Zack Weinberg" <zack@owlfolio.org> wrote:

>                                 I'm insisting that every last word of
> the debate be posted to the libc-alpha mailing list, nowhere else,
> because *nothing else will work.*  In order to convince all
> stakeholders that this is not a stitch-up of some kind; in order to
> convince the opponents of the move that their objections have
> genuinely been heard and responded to; in order to build real
> consensus of the entire community; a debate conducted exclusively
> on libc-alpha is *what you have to do*.

> It's not enough for a subgroup to reach consensus in a synchronous
> meeting, because some stakeholders cannot attend synchronous meetings.
> libc-alpha is the only venue that we know every stakeholder can use.

[...]

> It's not enough to post links, because documents behind links can be
> edited at any time.  All the text of everyone's arguments needs to be
> posted to libc-alpha so that there is a permanent record stored in an
> archive that everyone has confidence in.

> I spoke up *specifically* because you responded to Mark Wielaard
> saying that he was insisting on "rehashing" points in order to "keep
> dragging this on".  He did that *because* you haven't conducted the
> entire debate on libc-alpha.  If you want this argument actually ever
> to end, the *only way* to accomplish that is to start over and conduct
> the entire debate on libc-alpha.  Nothing else will work.

I second that wholeheartedly.


Alas, this is not the only significant departure from our way of doing
things in the form this proposal has been conducted.


Our current voluntary hosting arrangements listen to and participate in
the community.  If we want to try something out, they're normally happy
to lend us a hand and make it happen.

A professional hosting arrangement will involve a professional
relationship, in which only designated parties will be able to submit
requests in order to have them as much as listened to.

This is not AT ALL in the best interest of the community.

It's not even clear that this process is designed to serve the community
in the long term.


Consider that, currently, CTI is structured in two layers.

In the top layer, we have no say whatsoever.

In the technical layer, we currently have active community members, that
will presumably represent, and act on behalf of, the community.

The problem is that, unless the structure is designed to keep the
representation aligned with (as in regularly appointed by) the
community, it is pretty much guaranteed, for being a power structure, to
attract others who are interested in power, and thus to diverge from the
community, and, over time, to draw away from the community whatever
little decision making power it could potentially offer us.

It may even reverse the desired power dynamic, and instead of being
controlled by the community, start exerting power over the community.

This is not AT ALL in the best interest of the community.


And this doesn't even get to the problem of the top layer, that doesn't
even pretend to represent or act on behalf of the community, that holds
the actual power over the technical layer and, over time, also over the
community.

This is not AT ALL in the best interest of the community.


Instead of volunteers who serve us to the best of their ability, and
that don't pretend to own or control our project, we'd be getting
masters without any accountability to us, that our community would
eventually have to serve if we were foolish enough to hand over that
power to them as proposed and planned.

This is not AT ALL in the best interest of the community.


Whose interests is this proposed move supposed to serve?

-- 
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/