Hi Carlos, On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 06:02:03PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell via Gcc wrote: > Recent discussions on the glibc mailing list make it clear > that we need to expand and discuss more about our "why" along with > the "what" and "how" of these changes.
Zoe wrote a good summary of that discussion back in July: https://inbox.sourceware.org/f20ce996-e9c6-4b6c-856d-eec6e14af...@fsf.org/ Has anything changed since then to address the issues raised by her and others? I don't believe the community is helped by trying to set up yet another, corporate controlled, organization or doing some highly disruptive move of some parts of the services our projects are using. A couple of years ago we spend the time and energy to setup Sourceware as an organization that provides free infrastructure for our free software projects. And made sure to work out our relationship with our fiscal sponsor: https://sourceware.org/Conservancy-Sourceware-FSA.pdf https://sfconservancy.org/projects/policies/conflict-of-interest-policy.html We have a generic mission to provide core toolchain and developer tools project with free software infrastructure: https://sourceware.org/mission.html The history and general roadmap for the next 25 years are descriped at https://sourceware.org/sourceware-25-roadmap.html And a specific roadmap and projects for state of the art sustainable secure and robust services, the Secure Sourceware Project Goals, are described in https://sourceware.org/sourceware-security-vision.html I noticed you attended the Infrastructure BoF at the Cauldron and seem to be experimenting with the new Forge we setup. I hope you will be happy to work with the existing community and the existing organizations that support the GNU toolchain and the Sourceware infrastructure, instead of trying to setup yet another organization that would split our efforts. Cheers, Mark
