Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 22, 2022 10:03 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
Parent article: Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

"bordered on physical violence at one point." <raises eyebrows>

Doesn't like a good situation here. Also, from the reading of this article, it sounds like it was people from this submarine, behind-closed-doors, corporate-led project that were kind of disruptive and antagonistic. If they wanted, they could surely have given their own talk on their own plans, rather than interrupt someone else's talk?

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 22, 2022 10:08 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] (5 responses)

Quite. There were plenty of free slots, after all.

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 22, 2022 14:07 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (4 responses)

Reading the actual story, it sounds a bit like it might actually have been their slot, and it was hijacked.

But see my other comment about the agreed agenda, and the presenter's agenda, being two completely different things ...

Cheers,
Wol

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 22, 2022 15:27 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

The published agenda & speakers & schedule were all quite clear, see for yourself on the gcc wiki. I'm not aware of any "agreement" that made either time slot "joint" in the sense announced during the event (~"agree not to talk about services but rather about funding").

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 22, 2022 15:32 UTC (Thu) by smakarov (subscriber, #135270) [Link]

It's important to note that the published BoF agenda on the Cauldron schedule on the gcc wiki was, and remains as of this morning, about technical aspects of sourceware infrastructure:

https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2022#cauldron2022talks.s...

> ... This BoF is for everybody who likes to discuss (and wants to help with) automating the infrastructure to make contributing to our projects more fun and more productive.
>
> Topics to discuss include the shared buildbot [1]. Whether we need more/other arches/distro support. Which builders are most beneficial to projects. How buildbot should report issues. Whether to use the buildbot to automate other tasks like updating documentation, websites, generate release tars or updating bugzilla. How to use git user try branches. Taking advantage of the Bunsen [2] testrun cluster analysis, per-testrun testcase search/browse engines, search operators, testsuite summary (vs detail) grids. Patch tracking using patchwork [3] integrated with buildbot and the CICD trybot [4]. How to use the sourcehut mirror [5]. ...

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 22, 2022 16:40 UTC (Thu) by siddhesh (subscriber, #64914) [Link] (1 responses)

> But see my other comment about the agreed agenda, and the presenter's agenda, being two completely different things ...

There was a lot of confusion about the agenda. I had asked for my talk (which conflicted with one of the infrastructure slots) to be moved so that I could participate but I was told that both speakers had agreed to host the BoF jointly and that the conflicting slot was merely a spillover.

Unfortunately it looks like the message didn't reach the published agenda and evidently even the speakers don't seem to have spoken to each other about how they're going to present jointly.

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 23, 2022 22:57 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]

Sorry about that, clearly I was also confused about the intent of the second spillover BoF, I had assumed it was for spillover if we ran out of time on the GTI topic as the schedule said. We had tried to coordinate, but failed to have any public discussion before the talk.

But Carlos and I do actually agree on most things, we just differ in style and sometimes the path to take to a common goal. So when he proposed to join the BoF I had assumed the other prepared discussion topics that included how to use the new service to do pre-commit ci, testcase analysis, patch attestation for a secure supply chain, contribution tracking, etc. were all of common interest to both him and the whole community attending, so I really wanted to do that discussion first.

I had added the new part about the future of Sourceware and becoming a Conservancy member because I thought it was a nice bridge to Carlos topic. I hadn't intended it to be something controversial or a debate on different visions. Just that having a nonprofit fiscal sponsor for the community without funds seemed like it would be a good bridge to a topic about finding sponsors with funds to spend.

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 23, 2022 21:25 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] (2 responses)

> "bordered on physical violence at one point." <raises eyebrows>

Yeah, it isn't really that clear in the recording, but I really was at a
loss when someone started shouting and even pushing other participants
to shut up. That had never happened to me before and I didn't really
know how to handle it. So I lost control. What I of course should have done was simply tell that person to calm down and state that there would be plenty of time later for other discussion topics they wanted to bring up. Now it looked like I didn't want them to speak which made the optics even worse.

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Sep 27, 2022 9:47 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Thanks for explaining why.

I don't think it was proper to be repeatedly interrupted, even if the reaction was too strong. I assume everyone has learned from this.

Two visions for the future of sourceware.org

Posted Jan 2, 2023 20:10 UTC (Mon) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2022-December/240436.html