From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id TZ1RMVO5VWNY2g8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 17:59:47 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id BB1411E112; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 17:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=OYnog9mZ; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B6351E0CB for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 17:59:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F18C93856185 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 21:59:44 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F18C93856185 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1666562385; bh=q2nKZp9yIcZ6RRdlRrrBgvqS3bA9ciZvM3ldUtANj5E=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=OYnog9mZmbE8QHH1WnFWiZYfoTjGMlxB+jX4k7pod2V1l0k46Ujto2eA5JS8dHRo8 hFF5IDCSfB7ETSRwM3nguGLM6YWQMVbuRaSymt1IE6GCBsDTMd8zzMIDA0fD4ADdXc w7WCELyoVnTavcIxjMPiOoLdrfRYXYu9JAXU72LA= Received: from cgf.cx (external.cgf.cx [107.170.62.102]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C1C0385702C; Sun, 23 Oct 2022 21:59:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6C1C0385702C DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx D2092E9A54 Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2022 17:59:11 -0400 To: Siddhesh Poyarekar Subject: Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support Message-ID: <20221023215911.a3cxlalrp5pp64ve@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Siddhesh Poyarekar , Ian Kelling , Overseers mailing list , gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <2513b668-9ebd-9e78-7263-dc24f4a9558a@redhat.com> <20221013182529.sm76fysq37sv754x@cgf.cx> <9c0a9111-07b1-3617-c5c8-4b12e616f985@gotplt.org> <7abeb179-2c05-eee9-bd68-3b5f8a11bd32@gotplt.org> <87zgdmyg30.fsf@fsf.org> <230909ee-fb2c-cca0-abbe-fd7d6434efab@gotplt.org> <20221023205709.lxlhwq7nrxcojjyn@cgf.cx> <6a33dfa2-e0b3-50ac-ac82-3816374122bb@gotplt.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <6a33dfa2-e0b3-50ac-ac82-3816374122bb@gotplt.org> X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Christopher Faylor via Gdb Reply-To: Christopher Faylor Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Overseers mailing list , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , binutils@sourceware.org, Ian Kelling Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> > Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >> > > The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the >> > > services for the GNU Toolchain to the Linux Foundation IT under the auspices of >> > > the Toolchain Infrastructure project (GTI) with fiscal sponsorship from the >> > > OpenSSF and other major donors. >> > >> > Noted, however, a list of signatories does not automatically confer >> > authority over any particular project.  Any participation from >> > overseers in moving projects to different infrastructure will require >> > clear approval from the individual projects themselves. >> > >> > Also, the FSF, being the existing fiscal sponsor to these projects, >> > surely needs to review the formal agreements before we sunset our >> > infrastructural offerings to glibc, gcc, binutils, and gdb and hand >> > control of the projects' infrastructure over to a different entity. >> > >> > We'd like to assure the communities that, when and if any individual >> > project formally expresses the decision of their developers to transfer >> > their services, we'll endeavor to make the move as smooth as possible. >> > Those projects that wish to stay will continue to receive the best >> > services that the overseers can offer, with the ongoing assistance of >> > Red Hat, the SFC, and, when relevant, the FSF tech team. >> >> On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 09:27:26AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote: >> > Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to block migration of >> > all sourceware assets to the LF IT, I don't have a stake on how they'd like >> > to handle this for sourceware. I could however, as a member of TAC (and as >> > member of projects that have agreed to migrate to LF IT, i.e. gcc and glibc), >> > discuss with others the possibility of specific community volunteers being >> > given some amount of access to manage infrastructure. >> >> Stop spreading FUD. The "we" in my statement above, from October 13, >> included fche, mjw, and myself. You have no reason to be confused on >> this subject. >> > >Nope, I'm not spreading FUD, in fact that statement of yours is perfectly >consistent with what I've said: the blocker at the moment is that the >sourceware overseers have refused to hand over the server *in its entirety* >to LF IT, not that any projects themselves have refused to move their >services to LF IT. I don't doubt that the overseers will help in smooth >migration for projects that eventually state that they wish to move over. Your initial implication was that the unreasonable overseers would hold all projects hostage on our current infrastructure. Now you've "clarified" that point by implying that we've been approached to transfer the server "in its entirety" to the LF and have unreasonably refused. Both of those are FUD. You're either intentionally trying to muddy the waters or you're just confused. I'd submit that in either case you should just think about shutting up. You have no special authority to speak for the GTI TAC and your increasingly hostile messages are not helping anyone.