Re: Time for a request-for-comments process?

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hello!

Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauermann@kolabnow.com> skribis:

> I agree that guix-devel is a good place to announce new RFCs, probably 
> using an eye-catching subject prefix so that we can more easily see and 
> filter them.
>
> For RFCs where users are also stakeholders, we should also announce in 
> places where users are likely to see them, such as the info-guix and help-
> guix mailing lists, and possibly even the Guix blog (how far out do we want 
> to spread the word?).
>
> “guix shell” would have been an RFC with users as stakeholders, but I can 
> imagine others where that isn’t the case, such as some significant but 
> internal code reorganization.

Yes, that makes sense to me.  We have to make RFCs visible to users when
they have a direct effect on them, as is the case with ‘guix shell’.

So I suppose RFCs would be at least announced on guix-devel as everyone
suggests, but additionally on info-guix or the blog when we think users
need to have the opportunity to chime in.

As zimoun wrote, a big question is formalization.  I haven’t yet taken
the time to look at those other project RFC processes I mentioned, but
we should do that.  Important questions are: how do we determine whether
a change is important enough to be RFC-worthy?  How do we determine
whether it’s accepted or withdrawn?  Perhaps that will unfold broader
questions about structuring and decision-making.

If anyone feels like giving a hand of this formalization effort, please
feel empowered to do so!

Ludo’.