-1 As I explained before we cannot keep all HALs under ASF.
BR, Alan On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:31 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi All, > > After several discussions about HAL usage and community governance > [1][2][3], we (Espressif) propose hosting the current content of ` > github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> under an ASF-hosted > repository: ` > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif>. > > *What does it mean:* > > - `esp-hal-3rdparty` content is already Apache 2.0 licensed. > - Espressif's CCLA allows us to contribute to a newly created > repository: we would create a PR on ` > github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` > <http://github.com/apache/nuttx-hal-espressif> with `esp-hal-3rdparty` > content. > - On the other hand, the org account on `github.com/nuttx` > <http://github.com/nuttx> is not > legally attached to Apache Software Foundation and, > consequently, to NuttX. > We can't directly contribute to it. > - NuttX's committers will have (just like `nuttx` and `nuttx-apps`) > write permissions to merge PRs on the newly created repository; > - Espressif will support the community with HAL usage, including a > comprehensive guide on how to update it so that any community member can > send patches for HAL. > - The discussion about HAL governance comes and goes, creating > instability in the NuttX community among members, developers, and > vendors. > This is no longer acceptable and needs settlement. That being said: > - `github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty` > <http://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty> will no longer receive > direct contributions for now. > - The newly created `apache/nuttx-hal-espressif` - if the community > agrees on that - will enable it to evolve and receive new > contributions > with more authority from the community. > - On the other hand, native development is always an option if the > community decides to keep supporting the devices on its own. > > *What it doesn't mean:* > > - It doesn't mean we are pushing NuttX to accept vendor HALs. > `esp-hal-3rdparty` is a reality, and we want to empower the community to > enable any NuttX member to directly work with it. > - The discussion of whether NuttX should or should not officially > approve vendor HALs is not related to this call for a vote. > > This seems to be a *Procedural Issue* [4], and a simple majority should be > applied. The community is encouraged to vote. PMC members have binding > votes. > > In that sense, my vote (Tiago) is *+1 *(binding) > > References: > [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/gf4c3z4ds94lon91op4c6zmclqnwtvcf > [2] https://lists.apache.org/thread/nvnrf30jcdsxcrydmo2s95tdtlj8zvx9 > [3] https://lists.apache.org/thread/bg74qn14rs9qwson5lzt0xjb4fvbqh6j > [4] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting >
