Hi, 72 hours have already passed, so I'm closing this call for a vote and its results:
We had 3+ (me, Tomek, and Alin) and 1- (Alan). As a *procedural Issue*, a simple majority is enough. So it has *passed*. We are working towards meeting ASF requirements in the coming days. Best regards, Em seg., 5 de out. de 2026 às 12:54, Tiago Medicci Serrano < [email protected]> escreveu: > Hi, > > As mentioned earlier, https://github.com/espressif/esp-hal-3rdparty/ is > used only by NuttX. > > Best regards, > > Em seg., 5 de out. de 2026 às 11:33, Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> > escreveu: > >> Hi Tiago, >> >> I think we made a mistake when we said that Espressif had already signed >> the SGA. >> >> That SGA was for software Espressif was contributing to the NuttX >> mainline. >> >> For the HAL, the situation is different. If Espressif signs an SGA for >> their HAL it means Espressif is donating their HAL to ASF, the same way >> Greg donated NuttX to ASF. >> >> By doing so, Espressif will not have rights over its own HAL (same way >> Greg >> has no rights to NuttX now). >> >> Are you sure Espressif agrees on that? If so, Espressif and the Linux >> Foundation need to agree that ASF will be the owner of the HAL. >> >> BR, >> >> Alan >> >> On Mon, Oct 5, 2026 at 9:58 AM Tiago Medicci Serrano < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just addressing the last comments: >> > >> > 1. We can't say anything about other vendors. This is how we proposed to >> > host Espressif's HAL: under the Apache umbrella because we already have >> a >> > signed CCLA. *Keep in mind that this call for a vote is about >> Espressif's >> > HAL only*. >> > 2. It's being contributed to a separate repository because: >> > 2.1 It eases new contributions and new syncs being contributed by >> > Espressif. >> > 2.2 The HAL has its own coding style and contribution guide. >> > 2.3 It makes it easier to implement native implementations and isolate >> them >> > from the HAL. >> > >> > Please, keep voting on the proposed subject. Nothing else is being >> > discussed here (we have other threads to discuss it). >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Em sáb., 3 de out. de 2026 às 09:11, Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> >> > escreveu: >> > >> > > Hi Tomek, >> > > >> > > These are the issues I'm seeing here: >> > > >> > > 1) If Espressif donates its HAL to ASF it means they will no longer >> own >> > the >> > > HAL (you cannot have your cake and eat it too). Is this acceptable to >> > them? >> > > >> > > 2) Even if they accept this, other vendors probably will not accept >> > > donating their HALs. In this case we cannot keep it under ASF. >> > > If so, we would have to place it elsewhere, which would cause >> confusion: >> > > why are some HALs under ASF and others in a different location? >> > > >> > > BR, >> > > >> > > Alan >> > > >> > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 10:27 PM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Hey there Alan, >> > > > >> > > > Most of the raised HAL related issues should be solved that way as >> > > > proposed by Tiago and Espressif in this vote: >> > > > 1. Code ownership and supply chain security (mentioned by Alin). >> > > > 2. Community involvement in faster PR processing (mentioned by >> Felipe). >> > > > 3. We should have more control and impact on the HAL quality and >> > > > availability (mentioned by many). >> > > > 4. HAL is under the NuttX umbrella just as proposed "Zephyr Umbrella >> > > > Way" (mentioned by Renesas). >> > > > >> > > > From I understand Espressif offers to "donate" HAL to ASF to be >> > > > apache/nuttx-hal-espressif and this seems the best possible win-win >> > > > scenario. They don't have to do this but they want - big thank you! >> > > > >> > > > What obstacles do you see here? The vote here is about "Hosting >> > > > Espressif HAL under Apache umbrella" not all HALs. We have perfect >> > > > road paving here and good example for others. If we have problem >> with >> > > > other HAL then we vote other thing. But why block good solution >> > > > because of other possible bad solutions? >> > > > >> > > > We may one day consider Tiers as proposed by Michal and mentioned by >> > > > Nathan (with FreeBSD): >> > > > 1. Tier 1 - in tree code drivers. >> > > > 2. Tier 2 - HAL that is under ASF and our control. <-- we are voting >> > > > this scenario here. >> > > > 3. Tier 3 - HAL that is external and out of our control (not rally >> > > > welcome). >> > > > >> > > > Could you please reconsider your vote for this particular case / >> > > > scenario that is being voted? It seems that Espressif listened >> > > > carefully and provides best possible scenario :-) >> > > > >> > > > Thanks :-) >> > > > Tomek >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info >> > > > On Fri, Oct 2, 2026 at 3:10 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > -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> >> > > <http://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> >> > > <http://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> >> > > <http://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> >> > > <http://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> >> > > <http://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 >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
