Re: Core Toolchain Infrastructure - October 2024 update

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi Carlos,

On Wed, 2024-10-30 at 08:32 -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I can get down to specific requirements and possible solutions for them, including
> things like securing logins with 2FA etc. Which *could* be solved by Sourceware
> today possibly using Nitrokeys (open hardware and FOSS), for example.

Yes, a nitrokey distribution scheme is part of the Secure Sourceware
Project Goals: https://sourceware.org/sourceware-security-vision.html

We discussed this with OpenSSF and submitted a funding request to
OpenSSF Alpha Omega for this particular part. OpenSSF initially was
supportive to funding these kinds of security plans, but they have been
silent for the last couple of months. If you have contacts to get this
going forward again that would be great.

> Having all the details spelled out would allow Sourceware to make progress on the
> same issues raised, and I can even file infrastructure bugs if that helps.

Yes, please file bugzilla reports against the Sourceware Infrastructure
project:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?product=sourceware&component=Infrastructure
Or bring it up on the overseers list or during the Sourceware open
office hours. https://sourceware.org/mission.html#organization

> My deepest concerns here is that Sourceware PLC cannot convince larger sponsors
> to provide the funding to do what needs to be done to scale out and improve our
> services.

Thanks for your concern. The whole idea of setting up Sourceware as an
organization with Conservancy as a fiscal sponsor is precisely to make
these kind of sponsorships easy. And to expand funding to be able to
accept community donations and grants:
https://sourceware.org/donate.html


> I'm excited that the GNU Toolchain community is looking at different workflows and
> solutions, but if I'm honest the same question of funding and service/workload
> isolation applies.
> 
> I'm *more* excited to pay Codeberg directly to support the GNU Toolchain to support
> the development of Forgejo, particularly given that larger groups like Fedora are
> considering Forgejo.

Yes, we did already discuss this. But it is too early for that. Richard
setup a wiki page for the Forge Experiment that includes a list of
various bugs/issues in Forgejo that we would like to see resolved
before we can call the experiment an success.
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ForgeExperiment
When we are a bit further into the experiment to know which ones are
real blockers, we could fund the work to get those done.

Cheers,

Mark