Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

[bokr@bokr.com]

On +2025-01-09 18:33:16 +0100, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 at 11:40, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> > Yes, would be nice if some of you reading this could offer to become
> > “supporters”.
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Please take a look, comment, offer your name as a “supporter”, and then
> > make your voice heard during the deliberation period!
> 
> I think we need to clarify what means “supporter”.  In my mind, a
> Supporter is a person that commits to help the Author in crossing the
> final line.
> 
> During the Discussion Period, we discuss, all.  The aim of Supporter is
> to keep the RFC on track.  Especially, to let space and time to all to
> express their voice.  Nix names this Role: Shepherd.  Maybe it captures
> better the idea.
> 
> Then during the Deliberation Period, team members reply “I support”.
> 
> WDYT?
> 
> BTW, I like “Guix Common Document“ [1] instead of Request-For-Comment as
> suggested by pukkamustard.
>

I like <https://www.etymonline.com/word/parliament#etymonline_v_7228>

I'm imagining a virtual virtuous BDFL (VVBDFL) of a Guix or Guile project with
the parliament trying to influence the VVBDFL's decisions/commits.

I imagine a game engine could make it almost live, but the dialog stream should always
be available in parallel as text packets (unicode paragraphs a la TeX?) for easy archiving
and searching.

I prefer minimal cruft and easy greppability :)

So how about <project-name>-parliament ?

> 
> Cheers,
> simon
> 
> 1: [post Guix Days] Guix Common Document (was: Request-For-Comment process)
> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
> Sat, 03 Feb 2024 11:34:13 +0100
> id:87y1c1kfa2.fsf@gmail.com
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2024-02
> https://yhetil.org/guix/87y1c1kfa2.fsf@gmail.com
>