On 10/23/22 11:09, Frank Ch. Eigler via Libc-alpha wrote:
Hi -
[...] To be specific, gcc steering committee and glibc FSF stewards
have announced the decision for their projects [...]
I may be missing something. All I've seen so far were some of the
leaders of some of the projects being joint signatories to a letter on
overseers@. As far as I'm aware, that is not how any of these
projects make or announce **project decisions** with/to their
respective constituencies.
Right. It's a general statement of support from a variety of leaders
but I wouldn't consider it authoritative from any project.
For GCC the decision would be made by the overseers and relayed to the
overseers as an official statement for the GCC project. That would
happen after a vote by the steering committee members based on already
established voting procedures.
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.
Indeed. The onus is obviously on the shoulders of the proponents of
this proposal to convince each sourceware guest project to consent to
move. If you wish to frame any dissent as "blocking full migration",
then I'd say the job of convincing everyone just has not been up to
par. Perhaps it was the wrong goal all along.
Also agreed. And I fully support needing a statement from project
leadership for each project wishing to move. That is reasonable and I
wish we'd been clearer about that.
In simplest terms, overseers need to be a neutral party here.
In cases where overseers have leadership roles on particular projects,
then they will have to wear multiple hats, but it's not really
complicated. Each project makes a decision, by whatever means project
leadership has in place to make decisions. overseers then honors those
requests to stay or go. It's a pretty simple separation of
responsibilities. It need not be contentious in any way shape or form.
Jeff
