Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-18T15:17:53Z

On 2022-10-18 05:50, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Siddhesh,
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 12:11:53PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> There seems to be little to discuss from the GNU toolchain perspective IMO;
>
> Yes, it is clear you don't want any discussion or answer any questions
> about the proposals,

That is not true, Mark. Your objections and questions have been
answered at every stage, privately as well as publicly. What *is* clear
is that we have been talking past each other because despite our common
high level intentions, we appear to have little common ground for our
goals. You want to retain the current sourceware infrastructure and try
and see what we can do within that framework and I want us to migrate
services to infrastructure with better funding (that's not just limited
to services), dedicated ops management and an actually scalable future.

> how funds can be used,
Let me turn that around: how *would* you like funds to be used beyond
what is currently proposed in the LF IT proposal?

> what the budget is,

Around $400,000.

> what
> the requirements are,

Your lack of clarity about requirements IMO have more to do with you
wanting to fulfill those requirements within sourceware and not with
their existence. I and others have repeated them here and the overseers
have either questioned their validity or noted them in bugzilla as
possible things to explore in the current sourceware context. With
sourceware migration to LF IT off the table, there's little incentive
for me personally to explore them.

> how the governance structure works,

I think you know how it works, maybe you meant to say that you don't
like it?

The governance structure and their workings have been described in the
GTI introduction. There are two key bodies that govern the project: the
Technical Advisory Council (comprised of project community members)
manages the technical details of the infrastructure and the governing
board (comprised of representatives from funding companies) manages the
funding for those technical details.

The current TAC comprises of people from the initial community
stakeholders who were contacted and subsequently accepted the invitation
to be part of TAC. You, along with other overseers, were invited too
but most of you declined.

> what
> alternatives we have, etc.
For projects the alternatives they have are:

1. Migrate to LF IT infrastructure
2. Have a presence on sourceware as well as LF IT, contingent to Red
Hat's decision on the hardware infrastructure
3. Stay fully on sourceware

For sourceware as infrastructure the alternatives are:

1. Migrate to LF IT infrastructure
2. Stay as it currently is

For sourceware overseers, the choices are contingent on what projects
decide and what Red Hat decides w.r.t. sourceware.

All of the above has been clear all along. Maybe the problem here is
that you're not happy with the alternatives?

> But personally I think it is healthy to have real discussions, doing
> resource analysis, creating public roadmaps, collecting infrastructure
> enahancement requests, discuss how to organize, argue about the needed
> budget and how to use funding most efficiently, etc. To make sure that
> sourceware keeps being a healthy and viable free software
> infrastructure project for the next 24 years, hopefully including the
> various GNU toolchain projects.

You want to talk about sourceware without including the LF IT proposal
whereas I'd love to talk about sourceware as an LF IT maintained
infrastructure. There's a real disconnect that precludes any real
discussions.

Sid