If the vendor does grant the HAL to the ASF, then I see no benefit of a separate nuttx-hal-espressif Repository. Why not just a directory under nuttx that provides existing CI benefits and keeps the build simple?
If they do not grant the software to the ASF, then it cannot reside in a separate Apache repository, so the only alternatives are: (1) something outside of the ASF repository, like https://github.com/nuttx, or (2) we could simply manage the code as 3rd party code embedded within nuttx (as a lot of other code is). ________________________________ From: Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 11:43 AM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [VOTE] Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella If the vendor wishes to contribute the code to the ASF and provide the needed SGA then it's OK. I don't know whether the vendor wants to do that. Somehow, we need to get out of the impasse and find a way forward that is beneficial for everyone. Thanks, Nathan On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 2:37 PM Gregory Nutt <[email protected]> wrote: > Alan is correct: "Hosting a non-ASF (Apache Software Foundation) code > repository directly under official Apache infrastructure or versio control > organization is not allowed, as the ASF requires all official project code > to be housed within its supported services and managed strictly under > Apache committer policies." > > From AI Summary to Google search for "host non-ASF repository under Apache > repository" (I was too lazy to hunt down the exact ASF documents, but you > can do the same search for further info. > > > ________________________________ > From: Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 2, 2026 8:10 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] Hosting Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella > > -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> > > <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> > > <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> > > <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> > > <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> > > <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 > > >
