[Libre-soc-bugs] [Bug 982] Support PowerPC ABI in ISACaller

bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org bugzilla-daemon at libre-soc.org
Mon Oct 23 23:33:51 BST 2023


--- Comment #164 from Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net> ---
(In reply to Dmitry Selyutin from comment #155)

> I actually assumed from bug #981 that we need to write this kind of
> documentation as the ultimate comment.

no, you missed that it was an anomaly, that i am required as Project
Team Lead and Signatory to the Memorandum of Understanding to check
anything that i think potentially could be red-flagged by an Auditor.

when i have a satisfactory answer, it goes in the bugreport, and we
move on. done.

(NLnet has raised queries and requested additional comments approximately
*eight* times in 5 years. they read every single bugreport as part of
Due-Diligence, and sometimes it is just not clear. i do not tell people
about this, because they email me directly as Project Team Lead)

> > i.e.: if you want to spend the time writing a summary
> Not at all.

good! :)

> task ended up being underrated. I'd say all of us earned it well, it's just
> that cumulative we should've earned more.

under other bugreports. already taken care of. you very much need to
stop thinking in terms of "the task is the task: do it exactly...
or else". it is far more flexible than that, being fundamentaly based
on trust.

(In reply to Jacob Lifshay from comment #156)

> iirc that's only needed if we think the auditor could be suspicious about
> the amount paid for the apparent amount of work done.

correction: if *I as Project Team Lead and Signatory to the MOU*,
or NLnet themselves (eight times in 5 years) do not have an answer
ready *if* the Auditor is suspicious.  hence why NLnet read literally
every bugreport.

you are not the Signatory to the MoU jacob so you do not have the
direct responsibility, although it is all our responsibility.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the libre-soc-bugs mailing list