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

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 2026-09-10 16:33, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2026, at 4:34 PM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> 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.
> [...]
>> 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.
> 
> Your position here is almost but not exactly antithetical to Siddhesh's
> previously stated position that a professional hosting arrangement is in
> the best interest of the *project* (which is not exactly the same thing
> as the community) and so I would like to ask him to respond specifically
> to your position.
> 
> Do you think it will be possible, Siddhesh, to enable the entire
> community to communicate directly with the hosting providers? If so, how
> will this be arranged and guaranteed?  Do you have any other plans in
> place to ensure that the community *as a whole* remains in charge?  If
> so, please describe them.
That's a broad question, so let me try and break it down, that way we 
can also figure out missing touch points:

- Infrastructure set up planning is led by the CTI TAC[0] but is 
intended to be community-driven; folks in the CTI are necessarily part 
of the community in question.  We have a transition plan on the wiki[1] 
that we're editing publicly to make sure that questions/issues get 
addressed and we have a complete plan.

- Actual administrative access to the systems in question belong to LF 
IT staff.

- We're still figuring out initial set up, but I suspect GNU maintainers 
for the project will be responsible for setting up git write access and 
mailing list setup, subject to the privacy of individuals signed up to 
both those services.  That is, the GNU maintainers will have to reach 
out to maintainers and mailing list subscribers to get their consent and 
help set their accounts up.

- For day to day issues, community members should be able to reach out 
to LF IT either through their ticketing system or over email.  In 
general though Konstantin and his team are active in various channels on 
IRC too.  Konstantin lurks on #cti-help on OFTC nowadays.

- Overall infrastructure use questions (e.g. should we move to the 
forge?) are not a CTI question, they're a glibc community question. 
Once there's consensus, the CTI TAC can get involved in figuring out the 
logistics of working that, i.e. hooking the forge on sourceware with the 
writable git repo hosted with LF IT.

- Re. community remaining in charge, we're making sure that all our 
hosting is done using Free Software, adhering to GNU Ethical Repository 
Hosting guidelines.  As TAC, we're also looking to ensure that our setup 
is modular, so that if there's ever an irreconcilable difference with 
the LF on the direction of our infrastructure, we can easily forklift 
over to another provider.

[0] https://cti.coretoolchain.dev/tac/index.html
[1] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/service-transition-plan