From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id JF/bKzB0RmOZRgoAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 04:00:48 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A554C1E112; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 04:00:48 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 3B9A01E0D3 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 04:00:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFFC385B839 for ; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 08:00:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC9E6385B839; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 08:00:21 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org EC9E6385B839 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=klomp.org Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=klomp.org Received: from reform (deer0x0e.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 674B93021EB2; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: by reform (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0C052E83681; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:19 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 10:00:19 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: David Edelsohn Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: References: <6f6d141b-b776-8707-2c91-dc38d20aa9e1@gotplt.org> <20221004171007.oc2ot6eu6l24aipn@cgf.cx> <05b0f7fa-7077-5a8b-0c2f-dfb3068dd10f@gotplt.org> <517db8de93ece0eb81923fd05a731ca1da65e1dd.camel@klomp.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: , Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Overseers mailing list , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" 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 - Joining Software Freedom Conservancy as member project proposal https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018802.html - Full Sourceware SFC application text https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018804.html - Public SFC video chat meeting notes https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018837.html - Cauldron discussion notes and chat logs https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018849.html > Those of us working on the GTI proposal have approached it with good > intentions and engaged everyone in good faith. We have not made statements > maligning the motivations and intentions of those with different opinions, > implying nefarious motives, nor making baseless accusations. We have been > open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings Then lets just let the past be the past. Now that the proposal is public lets discuss it publicly. There have been various question about the details on the overseers list. Lets just discuss those and see how we can move forward. Cheers, Mark