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

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Sep 8, 2026, at 7:06 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 2026-09-07 16:23, Zoë Kooyman wrote:
>> FSF has always had doubts about the proposal, but has deliberately
>> never taken the position of outright rejection on any side of this
>> discussion, we believe in community decisions and we want to trust
>> people who have invested in the software. But from where I stand
>> there is *no agreement*. I welcome any proof to the contrary. I would
>> welcome even more, specific and substantiated answers to the
>> questions asked on this list, especially the ones considering goals,
>> future considerations, risk reduction, financial backing and
>> planning, and whether other proposals have been considered. And, if
>> they have, why they were found insufficient.
>
> My perception is that the reason why you don't see an agreement is
> because you choose to overlook everyone who has stated their support
> and instead amplify the few dissenting opinions that don't think
> there's a problem to be solved here, or have an antagonistic view of
> the Linux Foundation, which aligns with the FSF's antagonistic
> relationship with the Linux Foundation.

I'm going to reiterate this one more time: statements of support cannot
produce consensus for a decision whose decision-making process was
flawed from the very beginning.  The number of people currently either
endorsing or objecting to the current proposal is *irrelevant.*

The *only way* to reach an actual consensus decision, under present
circumstances, is to *restart the entire planning process from scratch*,
and conduct the new process exclusively in the previously agreed-upon
venue for collective decision making by the project -- namely libc-alpha.

zw