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

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 2026-09-27 19:53, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> In the current scenario, we have the GNU Toolchain community talking
> directly to Sourceware volunteer service providers.
> 
> In the proposed scenario, we have GNU Toolchain community members
> begging CTI (TAC, Board) members, who are not going to be appointed by
> the community indefinitely (TAC) or at all (Board), and they will decide
> which requests to pass on to the commercial service providers who will
> be bound by a contractual agreement as to what service they're going to
> provide.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what the TAC is; it is *by 
definition* made up of members of the community:

https://cti.coretoolchain.dev/gov/charter.html
https://cti.coretoolchain.dev/tac/index.html

> It's about as dissimilar as between calling a friend for help, or
> calling health insurance customer service (your call is very important
> to us, please hold) to get an ambulance for some time next year.

No it's not, see above.

>> If we use FOSS tooling and we can clone the repo, we are happy to have
>> sponsors provide our services using FOSS and support our projects.
> 
> ... as long as they deliver freedom to *us*, giving *us* control over
> our computing.  Otherwise there's little use for us in the software's
> being freedom-respecting: it won't be our freedom that it respects, but
> the provider's.  Good for them, not for us.

Nope, this is just an extension of your misrepresentation above.

>> Just like we don't ask our volunteers to believe what we believe, we
>> don't ask our sponsors to believe what we believe, but we do ask them
>> to use FOSS tooling for our services.
> 
> You ask too little, and because of that, you push us all into a risky
> scenario in which we lose (more) control over our infrastructure.  It's
> going exactly the wrong way.  We should aim for more control, not less.
> 
> The proposal adds 3 layers of control over us between the community and
> the services: the actual service provider, analogous to Sourceware, but
> under a contractual arrangement that will limit what it can provide; the
> CTI board, that's not at all bound to the community interests, and the
> CTI TAC, that might be *currently* formed by community members, but
> that, because of the organization arrangement, will distance itself from
> the community over time.

Again, no, it's a further extension of your misrepresentation above.

> That sucks rocks, Carlos.  It might be great for those who're on the TAC
> and who wish to distance glibc from the community, or who think of
> themselves alone as the community, but it's no good for the community
> proper, because the community has no actual say there or at any point
> past it.  Instead of serving the community, eventually the community
> will be serving it.

Again, you're looking to make an "us vs them" case with people from 
exactly the same community, looking out for exactly the same interests. 
There's no distancing here, it's a manufactured perception based on your 
first lie, that the TAC can be comprised of people outside the GNU 
toolchain community.

> It's an evident power grab, and the only reason I won't label it a
> hostile takeover is that there are a number of us who have been naîve or
> cunning enough to push for and welcome this traitorous power grab.

No it's not, you're making this up because you don't like the LF and 
you're fine with throwing us under the bus because it suits your argument.

> This power structure isn't designed to serve us.
> 
> Whom is it designed to serve, can you tell?  Can you support your answer
> with facts about the structure and how it will *lastingly* remain
> aligned with and in service of the community, and not the other way
> round?
If you undo the first lie that you built this entire facade on, you'll 
see how: the TAC *is made up of members of the community in question*, 
which means for us, it is comprised of folks form the GNU toolchain 
community, as it is today.

Sid