Re: The GNU Toolchain Infrastructure Project
Siddhesh Poyarekar <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha,gmane.comp.gdb.devel,gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gcc.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2022-10-07 04:57, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Given that they were private I can only talk for myself: > https://inbox.sourceware.org/overseers/[email protected]/T/#m22a52506bc116dbcb10c8cbfa8ed89510f4dc1b7 I believe one of your concerns (alternatives for proprietary videoconferencing and list management for TAC) was acknowledged before you raised it in that email and is being worked on. As for the rest, it really is a question on whether all of sourceware will in the end be migrated over to LF, it's for the remaining projects to decide. If we indeed have all projects on board then I agree, perhaps we then need to ask Red Hat to hand sourceware over to the LF and call the project "Sourceware Infrastructure Project" or just Sourceware. > But various people listed as "key stakeholders consulted" said they > either didn't know anything about this, they were contacted but never > got any details, or were only told about parts of it. It would be nice to hear from these folks on what parts were withheld from them. > That is precisely what we have been doing for the last couple of > months. And we don't believe that is in conflict with finding > alternative sources of funding, creating a technical advisory committee > and/or possibly having some "managed services" where that makes sense. That part is not in conflict, calling it the "Sourceware project" is. Sid