Hi David, On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 01:14:50PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > an alternative proposal? When were they allowed to participate in the > preparation of the "Sourceware" proposal, supposedly for their benefit?
It wasn't really meant as an alternative proposal. And tt shouldn't be in conflict with finding alternative sources of funding, creating a technical advisory committee or having some managed services. And it is a about having a public discussion. - Sourceware roadmap discussions https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q2/018453.html https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q2/018529.html https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018636.html https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018716.html - Joining Software Freedom Conservancy as member project proposal https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018802.html - Full Sourceware SFC application text https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018804.html - Public SFC video chat meeting notes https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018837.html - Cauldron discussion notes and chat logs https://sourceware.org/pipermail/overseers/2022q3/018849.html > Those of us working on the GTI proposal have approached it with good > intentions and engaged everyone in good faith. We have not made statements > maligning the motivations and intentions of those with different opinions, > implying nefarious motives, nor making baseless accusations. We have been > open and available for conversations to clarify misunderstandings Then lets just let the past be the past. Now that the proposal is public lets discuss it publicly. There have been various question about the details on the overseers list. Lets just discuss those and see how we can move forward. Cheers, Mark
