Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

Siddhesh Poyarekar
2022-10-24T01:29:36Z

On 2022-10-23 17:59, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 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.Â  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.

Absolutely not, you and I have had multiple exchanges on this list so
far and I'd have trusted you to take my statement above in the correct
context. I did not even negate your statement when you stated that the
overseers would support seamless migration of services over to LF IT and
in fact supplemented[1] by saying that the transition would likely take
years.

> 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.

You literally have an email on the list with the subject like "Moving
sourceware to the Linux Foundation? no thanks".

> 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.

It's funny that you're asking me to shut up and also implying that my
messages are hostile.

Sid

[1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018987.html