Thank you Tiago for the reference and your patience :-) Yes we may see this as "procedural issue" but it touches the code, like most things in NuttX are about code sooner or later. I am sure that there is a some sort of misunderstanding here that we can solve and get all +1 also from Alan :-)
Maybe it is a chicken-egg problem: we want to fulfill the ASF requirements for transferring the esp-hal undert ASF/NuttX umbrella, but first we need to vote if this change is welcome, right? If there are any issues with the ownership transfer then we have this vote to prove this move is welcome :-) -- CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 1:52 PM Tiago Medicci Serrano <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Just to address some concerns: > > Tomek, a veto is valid for *code modifications.* No code is being modified > here. In this case, the best fit for this vote is a *procedural issue *(we > are moving a piece of code to ASF). That's why simple majority applies and > I declared it as *passed* (I wasn't "pushing" for that, I based it on > https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting). > > Alan, respectfully, all the concerns you raised are not related to this > vote. ASF has nothing to do with adopting other vendors' HAL or not. This > is a decision for the projects ASF hosts (and, of course, if they fulfil > ASF requirements). The same for HAL becoming (or not) a standard on NuttX: > nothing prevents native development. We voted for hosting Espressif's HAL > under ASF (and only that). > > Best regards, > > > Em qua., 7 de out. de 2026 às 10:36, Karel Kočí <[email protected]> escreveu: > > > Hi, > > > > I want to support Alan here. I would prefer the ESP HAL integration, when > > it is > > donated anyway, over HAL standardization. On this I like the Alan's > > approach > > more. I only feel like we might be minority. > > > > I am not against vendor HALs out right, I just think that they should be > > "secondary" support and that they should not be part of the core. Vendors > > having > > option either doing the right thing and donating the code, or doing the > > cheap > > thing and just integrating with NuttX through their existing HAL. > > > > I am advocating for ESP integration and addition of support for external > > chips. > > > > Karel > > > > On Wed 07 Oct 2026 10:26:30 AM , Alan C. Assis wrote: > > > Hi Tomek and Tiago, > > > > > > Right, I can change my vote to +1 to let it pass. > > > > > > Although I think we are doing the wrong thing. It should have been done > > in > > > the right order. > > > > > > First we need to confirm with ASF if they will accept hosting any HAL > > even > > > from vendors who do not want to give a SGA to Apache. > > > > > > And maybe even more importantly: shouldn't we vote first on whether to > > > accept HAL as a standard? > > > > > > It seems many here oppose making HAL a standard to avoid the issue other > > > RTOSs face with poor-quality HALs. > > > > > > We can move the Espressif HAL to the Apache repository and over time, we > > > can fix NuttX to replace it with native code. I think this is the safer > > > option. > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026 at 10:13 AM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Ugh, isn't that single -1 blocks the vote pass? > > > > > > > > Alan I think in this particular situation it is worth giving +1 here.. > > > > would it be possible for you to reconsider and give +1 please? :-) > > > > > > > > -- > > > > CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2026, 15:02 Tiago Medicci Serrano < > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > >> > > <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> > > > > > >> > > <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> > > > > > >> > > <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> > > > > > >> > > <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> > > > > > >> > > <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 > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
