Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 11:01:34AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>On 10/23/22 10:07, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>>>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.
>
>They can make those decisions for the projects they lead.  But making
>the decision or setting criteria for other projects is highly
>unreasonable.

This is not, IMO, helping.

On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 02:25:29PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>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.

We can't help move anyone without first establishing some kind of
criteria.  The only reasonable criteria is a formal request from the
project being moved.

As an exercise in human psychology, these insinuations of anticipated
unhelpfulness *can* eventually be a self-fullfilling prophecy, though.

i.e., if you really do not *want* any help with any transitions of
projects then, just keep implying, despite evidence to the contrary,
that we might be unreasonable jerks.

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

vv

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 06:19:33PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>It doesn't smell good, however, that Sourceware has been prevented from 
>presenting its own
>expansion plans and proposals at the Cauldron.  I wish it too gets a chance to 
>extend their offer.
>There's no basis for a rational decision in refusing to listen to 
>alternatives; it comes across to
>me as acknowledgment that a weaker proposal wishes to prevail by denying 
>others any consideration.

^^^

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>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.

Your initial implication was that the unreasonable overseers would hold
all projects hostage on our current infrastructure.   Now you've "clarified"
that point by implying that we've been approached to transfer the server
"in its entirety" to the LF and have unreasonably refused.

Both of those are FUD.  You're either intentionally trying to muddy the
waters or you're just confused.  I'd submit that in either case you should
just think about shutting up.  You have no special authority to speak for
the GTI TAC and your increasingly hostile messages are not helping anyone.

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

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.

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:17:15AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>That is not true, Mark.  Your objections and questions have been answered at
>every stage, privately as well as publicly.

Actually, going back through this thread, I see outstanding
questions/issues raised by Mark, Frank, Alexandre Oliva, Jon Corbet, and
Andrew Pinski.

Re: Toolchain Infrastructure project statement of support

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

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.

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 10:02:19PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>...But it would be really nice to hear directly from the Linux
>Foundation and the OpenSSF about what exactly they are proposing, which
>parts of the proposal are mandatory, which can be mixed and matched,
>and how they see this working together with Sourceware becoming a
>Software Freedom Conservancy member project.

Indeed.

The silence from the proponents of this project is puzzling.  I wonder
if this means there are more non-public negotiations going on somewhere,
leaving the community out of the loop.

cgf

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 01:17:14PM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>On 2022-10-04 13:10, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> > I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
>> > scope creep of the GTI proposal.
>> 
>> Who is doing the false speculation?  Do you have a mailing list link?
>> It would be interesting to know who's got it wrong.
>
>Mark asked upthread if content on gnu.org is also going to be migrated over
>based on sharing of meeting minutes on the gnu.org domain.

I think you mean:

>>On Sun Oct 2 20:47:49 GMT 2022, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>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.

Reading the meeting logs (I wasn't there and left this project shortly
after the meeting) I don't see anything that directly answers Mark's
question.  So, to me, this seems like an innocent request for
clarification rather than an attempt to push a false speculation.

There's no need to go down this rabbit hole, though.  Thanks for
clarifying.

cgf

Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 09:46:08AM -0400, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>I made and shared this copy to dispel any further false speculation of
>scope creep of the GTI proposal.

Who is doing the false speculation?  Do you have a mailing list link?
It would be interesting to know who's got it wrong.

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:23:30PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 11:48:18AM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>>By the way, the public-inbox software
>>(), as recently mentioned in a
>>different thread discussing deficiencies of Mailman's Pipermail, also
>>does support this:
>>
>>(random example).  (I have not yet really looked into that software
>>myself, but from the little I read about it, it seems conceptually
>>simple, "easy", good.)
>>
>>If there's sufficient interest (users) and commitment (overseers), we
>>could install this on sourceware, in addition to what we've currently
>>got?
>
>I would very much like this.  *All* of the problems with the current
>mail archive, as well as all of the problems with the one we had
>before, do not exist with public-inbox.
>
>(It probably has problems all of its own, of course ;-) )

It's been suggested many times both before we rolled out the new
sourceware and after.

I'm not a real fan of the interface but at least it's being supported.
It's just not supported in RHEL 8 right now, as far as I know.

To reiterate our current philosophy: We're trying to use supported
software on sourceware and not have to roll our own and worry about
keeping track of upstream fixes and security issues.

Re: Stability of pipermail ml archive URLs

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 06:14:55AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>Such a service is not currently available on sourceware, but it'd be
>>possible to implement: as messages come in, you'd build a database
>>mapping from the Message-ID header to "current Mailman's Pipermail
>>URL".
>
>I was thinking we might be able to trick pipermail (the web archiver
>component) to simply name the message web urls after some function of
>the message-id instead of the sequence number.  Will give this a try
>very shortly.

I just want to go on record as saying that I think this is a bad idea.
We can fix this problem simply without redesigning pipermail.  The
problem that we're seeing is caused by a script that I wrote to migrate
ezmlm to mailman.  The fix for the problem is "Don't run that script".

But, if we are going to make this level of change to pipermail we might
as well go wild and just implement all of the other things that people
want and forget about our supposed desire to use "supported" software.
Changing pipermail to use message-id's rather than sequence numbers
negates the argument that we want to be standard since we likely won't
be able to get this change in upstream.  I doubt that mailman2
developers will want to consider this major a change in a product that
is supposedly close to EOL.

cgf

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 18:02, Jonathan Wakely  wrote:
>>On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 at 16:46, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>All of the above is handled by whomever is responsible for the gcc web
>>>pages.  It would be nice if someone fixed those links.
>>
>>Yes, removing the broken subcription form on gcc.gnu.org/lists.html is
>>on my TODO list, but gcc-10 work is higher priority.
>
>Patch submitted for approval now:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/544461.html

Thanks!

cgf

Re: blacklisted after announce on GNU cauldron ?

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:13:13PM +0200, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>Hi Frank,
>
>> On 23 Apr 2020, at 16:34, Frank Ch. Eigler  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi -
>> 
 A re-subscription attempt to the gcc mailing list just
 failed, expectedly I guess.
>> 
>> I see no sign in the logs of Olivier being banned in any form.  Please
>> resubscribe online and forward complete failure symptoms if you
>> believe this is still happening.
>
>Thanks for your feedback!
>
>I managed to subscribe again by going through the gcc
>list specific info page :-)
>
>My previous attempts were issued from
>
>  https://gcc.gnu.org/lists.html#subscribe
>
>Subscribing from there doesn't work and leads
>to a page which provides instructions which don't work
>either.
>
>From there I thought the coincidence was troubling.
>
>There is actually a FAQ link on the instructions page,
>which I just checked, and ... it directs to a 404 page:
>
>  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/index.html#faqs
>
>I'll try to re-subscribe to gcc-patches now.

All of the above is handled by whomever is responsible for the
gcc web pages.  It would be nice if someone fixed those links.

Re: Not usable email content encoding

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:56:09PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
>In a way that's amusing and just reinforces my p.o.v. that DMARC is 
>bollocks.

Not that it means anything but I agree 100%.

It's like whoever made the "standard" just said "to hell with mailing
lists".

Re: Not usable email content encoding

[Christopher Faylor via Gcc]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 03:13:53PM +, Michael Matz wrote:
>Can we please switch it off?  It's not like we really had a problem before 
>the switch to mailman.

You can't really make statements like this which imply that you are
aware of "problems" on sourceware when you're not a sourceware
administrator.

We actually were munging the From on the old server and we were getting
an increasing number of complaints to postmaster that people weren't
receiving mail.