From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id oMqEC+O+RmPHZQoAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:19:31 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2D2451E112; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:19:31 -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=CFy/NzQD; 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=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.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 9282E1E0CB for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2323A381FE44 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:19:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2323A381FE44 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1665580770; bh=SV8GzSOfa1E5GnqB3fiVflzNiY7Y9ywan+dZ8qyEK9M=; h=To:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=CFy/NzQD0DeT60djPBPlLoGGuNMM1JoUbVw5DKopPH8uw69btsnms0ZkobBpJ2hoG SGYrsVpXBgi2uWCsc1zeN9YrDr33Br1Cb4QVwtAhugn2jhughdjpjl958D9Mcdgq/s CXnp3NaH3bVFCYPBEByA7Zo5pGeIA+UY80u6YmkY= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB3D7385DC1D for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:19:04 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DB3D7385DC1D Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-654-2kQ2VDMpNdefby6Jt1hHtQ-1; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 09:19:01 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2kQ2VDMpNdefby6Jt1hHtQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB82B8065F7; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.192.47]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53E53492B0E; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:18:57 +0000 (UTC) To: Mark Wielaard via Overseers Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <20221004171007.oc2ot6eu6l24aipn@cgf.cx> <05b0f7fa-7077-5a8b-0c2f-dfb3068dd10f@gotplt.org> <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 15:18:55 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Mark Wielaard via Overseers's message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:19 +0200") Message-ID: <87h709yybk.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain 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: Florian Weimer via Gdb Reply-To: Florian Weimer Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, Mark Wielaard , binutils@sourceware.org, David Edelsohn Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" * Mark Wielaard via Overseers: > Hi David, > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:14:50PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: >> an alternative proposal? When were they allowed to participate in the >> preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit? > > It wasn't really meant as an alternative proposal. And tt shouldn't be > in conflict with finding alternative sources of funding, creating a > technical advisory committee or having some managed services. And it > is a about having a public discussion. > > - Sourceware roadmap discussions > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q2/018453.html > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q2/018529.html > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018636.html > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018716.html Overseers was a hidden list until recently: I'm pointing this out to show how difficult it is to build public consensus. You might think you are doing it, but the view from the outside is probably quite different. Thanks, Florian