On Fri, 2023-04-21 at 16:14 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > During the board meeting, the naming issue was re-raised; “x86 SIG” > just > isn't that great. So I'd like to propose “x86-64 SIG” instead, with > a > hyphen. We use “x86_64” in the RPM architecture name and configure > triplets, but only because we must, as “-” is consindered a separator > in > these contexts. The official vendor-neutral architecture name is > x86-64. > > During the meeting, I was under the impression that the board was > leaning towards a narrow scope, but that is not quite what the posted > minutes reflect. Per Fabian's announcement, we have at least a bit > of > wiggle room for non-x86 ISA experiments in CBS (ThunderX2 has LSE > atomics support). Personally, I'm not interested in such experiments > at > this time, though. But we could call the SIG “ISA SIG” to keep open > the > possibility for non-x86 work, if that's what people want. > > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > Florian Perhaps setting up "working groups" within the SIG would help clarify the current scope of work? An ISA SIG with an x86-64 working group would clarify that no work is currently focused on any other arches, but leave open a door if other folks wanted to form some sort of s390x working group - but they'd be on their own? Pat