On 2022-10-23 16:57, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Re: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q4/018981.html
On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 12:43:09PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
The GNU Toolchain project leadership supports the proposal[1] to move the
services for the GNU Toolchain to the Linux Foundation IT under the auspices of
the Toolchain Infrastructure project (GTI) with fiscal sponsorship from the
OpenSSF and other major donors.
Noted, however, a list of signatories does not automatically confer
authority over any particular project. Any participation from
overseers in moving projects to different infrastructure will require
clear approval from the individual projects themselves.
Also, the FSF, being the existing fiscal sponsor to these projects,
surely needs to review the formal agreements before we sunset our
infrastructural offerings to glibc, gcc, binutils, and gdb and hand
control of the projects' infrastructure over to a different entity.
We'd like to assure the communities that, when and if any individual
project formally expresses the decision of their developers to transfer
their services, we'll endeavor to make the move as smooth as possible.
Those projects that wish to stay will continue to receive the best
services that the overseers can offer, with the ongoing assistance of
Red Hat, the SFC, and, when relevant, the FSF tech team.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 09:27:26AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Given that the current sourceware admins have decided to block migration of
all sourceware assets to the LF IT, I don't have a stake on how they'd like
to handle this for sourceware. I could however, as a member of TAC (and as
member of projects that have agreed to migrate to LF IT, i.e. gcc and glibc),
discuss with others the possibility of specific community volunteers being
given some amount of access to manage infrastructure.
Stop spreading FUD. The "we" in my statement above, from October 13,
included fche, mjw, and myself. You have no reason to be confused on
this subject.
Nope, I'm not spreading FUD, in fact that statement of yours is
perfectly consistent with what I've said: the blocker at the moment is
that the sourceware overseers have refused to hand over the server *in
its entirety* to LF IT, not that any projects themselves have refused to
move their services to LF IT. I don't doubt that the overseers will
help in smooth migration for projects that eventually state that they
wish to move over.
Sid
