The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

Siddhesh Poyarekar
Fri Sep 30 15:51:03 GMT 2022

On 2022-09-30 11:05, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Again you think these two can be independent, Once a technical
> decision is made, a monetarial one needs to be made which can be
> stopped by the governing board. THIS IS A PROBLEM.
> They cannot be independent. Because also at anytime the governing
> board could just say fuck off. Unless there are bylaws in place which
> have not been sent out anywhere; just this high level picture of what
> will happen.

Like I said, if there is an irresolvable conflict with the governing 
board, we can step away from the LF.

> Again what is a "major" donor?

I don't know, maybe someone else can answer this.

>> That's just FUD :)
> Again this was not FUD but rather pointing out what happened in the
> past and trying to correct it. If LF/ folks didn't learn
> about social engineering that well; then maybe they are not the best
> people to do this.

It's FUD because it's wild speculation and casting persistent doubt over 
someone based on a single past incident.  Unless you have credible 
reason to believe that they've not learned from the incident, you're 
only casting fear, uncertainty and doubt.

>> The overseers
>> archives too AFAICT were made public only recently and I only happened
>> to discover it last week.
> The archives have been public (or rather semi-public) for over 10
> years now. It might not have been linked from anywhere but they have
> existed for a long time now and have been public for that while too.
> I am sorry you didn't know about the archives before; but that is on you.

Funny that you call it semi-public (whatever that means) and then also 
say that it's on me that I didn't find the archives.  FWIW, I've 
deliberately looked for the archives in the past and not found it.  In 
any case, we digress.

> Sounds like you have no idea how sourceware has function in general.

Sounds like you're in a mood to make ridiculous comments.  Please 
consider being a bit more thoughtful in your responses.  Both you and I 
have been in this community for over a decade and statements like this 
are just immature.

>>> ** I get where corporations want to do this because they can track
>>> where things come from. But this is very much anti-open/free source
>>> ideals and very much anti-small developers
>> I disagree.
> Disagree all you want but it is the truth. Companies are pushing for
> this because they want more control. I want less control and in the
> hands of companies and more control in nobody really.

Requiring signed commits does not have anything to do with software 
freedom.  In any case, that's a project-specific question.  You may 
discuss that within the gcc community whenever that question comes up there.

>> FWIW, there are no viable alternatives to bugzilla at the moment and
>> nothing's really intended to change here.
> You didn't comment on funding parts but just saying bugzilla is it
> because of no viable alternatives. This is funny because we want ways
> of improving things and then you skip that point.

The GTI proposal talks about (1) sponsors and (2) an IT team that'll 
help us with maintenance and porting of what we currently have.  It's 
essentially an expansion of capacity.  In that context, bugzilla can 
move more or less unchanged.

Questions about funding improvements to bugzilla are things that we need 
to figure out as a community through TAC and it will compete for funding 
with anything else that we propose to do, e.g. improvements to 
patchwork, pre-commit CI, developer-triggered testing (e.g. 
build-many-glibcs), maybe even another patch review tool like gerrit or 
gitlab.  We're not there yet.


More information about the Overseers mailing list