From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id M7e/Lgn5OWNLYwQAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 16:48:09 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B23F71E112; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:48:09 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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 A37291E0D5 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:48:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F5A3385C8B1 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 20:48:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gnu.wildebeest.org (gnu.wildebeest.org [45.83.234.184]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 743863858D32; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 20:47:52 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 743863858D32 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 (deer0x0b.wildebeest.org [172.31.17.141]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gnu.wildebeest.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D9FA3021EAC; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 22:47:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: by reform (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4A6A42E80FB3; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 22:47:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 22:47:49 +0200 From: Mark Wielaard To: overseers@sourceware.org Subject: Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: gdb@sourceware.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Errors-To: gdb-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" Hi, We are using overseers to coordinate this and see how we can mix-and-match pieces of this proposal. And to better understand how this proposal interacts with Sourceware becoming a Conservancy member project. So I added overseers@sourceware.org to have one central place for these discussions. On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 06:38:02PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell via Libc-alpha wrote: > On 9/27/22 16:08, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > > "The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project" > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018896.html > > I've published the current GTI TAC meeting minutes to the glibc website: > https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/gti-tac/index.html > > The slides from the LF IT are a good overview: > https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/gti-tac/LF%20IT%20Core%20Projects%20Services.pdf I assume www.gnu.org was the easiest way for you to quickly make these things public. But it now does look like it is an official FSF/GNU proposal. Which I assume wasn't your intention. Note that it contains a copyright notice "© 2022, GTI TAC." but doesn't seem to have a (free) license. Which is kind of necessary if you host it on www.gnu.org. This does raise the question if you are also proposing migrating non-sourceware services for projects like the websites of various of the GNU projects on www.gnu.org or the release archives at the GNU ftp server (and mirrors) those projects use. The attendees list a subset of the GTI TAC members you posted earlier. Was there any other way for people to participate in these discussions? Did the GTI TAC invite the LF/IT team to give this presentation or was this a proposal from the LF? I note that this discussion and what you presented at Caudron was for the migration of all services of all projects hosted on Sourceware. But that your latest proposal is just for a subset of projects, possibly only in part as would best suit their needs. Lets file some sourceware infrastructure bugzilla entries for some of these ideas in this presentation, to get a better understanding what the real needs are. It would also be nice to hear the prices/budget for the various options suggested in the presentation. Cheers, Mark