On 2022-10-23 11:16, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Hi -
[...] Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to
block migration of all sourceware assets to the LF IT [...]
If you're trying to say that projects have not unanimously shown
interest in moving infrastructure to LF IT, just say that. Don't
blame overseers.
I did not say that, although no project (barring maybe elfutils and
systemtap, assuming that your and Mark's objection as overseers implies
that you do not want to move to LF IT) has specifically *opposed* moving
infrastructure to LF IT either.
To be specific, gcc steering committee and glibc FSF stewards have
announced the decision for their projects, Nick announced for binutils
that he supports moving to LF IT (with the caveat that he won't abandon
sourceware, I assume that means he'd like to use sourceware as a mirror
or something similar) but gdb folks have been silent so far. Given how
gdb and binutils are coupled, the gdb conversation really needs to
happen at some point. From private conversations with folks from the
gdb community, it seems to me that they're primarily avoiding getting
into this public spat.
I am not aware of any opposition from maintainers of libabigail or
cygwin or any other active sourceware based project over moving either,
but I haven't had any links to those projects, so I may be uninformed.
If you're trying to suggest that overseers, contrary to our repeated
public statements, wish to block all migration, that is untrue and you
will need to retract this.
Here's a more precise statement: Two of the overseers are leaders of
projects hosted on sourceware and three overseers (including those two)
have stated clearly on multiple occasions that transitioning to LF IT is
off the table, effectively announcing their decision on behalf of
projects they lead. It is hence clear that the overseers have
effectively blocked full migration of sourceware to LF IT.
Sid
