From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id MKp3A0iSVWeLnwAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 12:34:16 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id MKp3A0iSVWeLnwAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 13:34:16 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b="BZGw/ruY"; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="A LoUXHF"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1733661255; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=muTZR5F98QIptrUDIUIpa0Jddp88XqhNSmZiaNUXYes=; b=OYBpUk1OjG3InLhy18LAttpIXxCle61zSffsnjFszujZj/uE80veLG975UTZyo3GvqcGH8 NE5/cOCmq4bhmiVDAE9OA/OBah6mIi6Prj1w01bTugXQckZxxAkFTq+TyacVvUoHf1P1vH szt9HTt75tDSKV8c1GjW/zrYij2jSm3RZ7+D3WAJbgro0AKANwno6VUVyaBF7+tEbtpfNS vi86Ii9UsoX5gsDgmNBALUKqBN9aTYLbXyu112SwFm3wtpQyhpVLsoftJFOArjed5qjRGt GuRF8N6YwxfqDile/FP2WyVbIAzpGIjdv0BgseprszpqU2tk+r58240ANDbZcg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b="BZGw/ruY"; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="A LoUXHF"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1733661255; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=jAj3T8ND7DW718Jn/4d7NvLhExaT7+moOcWZDqGcubUBz/jecEUdC+QwWNbb8KE2et4gWv /4IMvyBPiqfVuf0ZoBy2Pm6UFLwdXV5o85pFEcLVb4DhoaCJk2iwRH93VPfWlV1atfebgI MFLLMKqg9R+JoR5vNuLeV7L08O+ydSi6kfjeG8cNr5r+7mPs8VdMgs1ogAVc7kuZSWb+v8 HGOtDLbbclp/EvyGYD2DBGLtRxk09XtO4/g7TTE19jsKs3e+zJKa/NFiGe0d7AHoeX/L4v FR8MozZaoZXsrswLmsKvCSsE9jp6p6m9o+UKqybrZFTvOdZEc4pueAhqkt4Gpw== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AAC546300 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 13:34:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tKGUA-0002Cb-Sm; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 07:34:07 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tKGU7-00028v-6x for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 07:34:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:5::43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tKGU6-0007vb-Te; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 07:34:02 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=debbugs.gnu.org; s=debbugs-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Date:From:To:Subject; bh=muTZR5F98QIptrUDIUIpa0Jddp88XqhNSmZiaNUXYes=; b=BZGw/ruYyIVeiWSfEV3xTYFUMKYfLZFGmyBD7O+94rHKtX+ImPpK7o0w9Ev/Uvu6RASY5crmvCCFzxwJEyZiFSmkBkYxb7Ed2fStj0He8TuBBzmXXqrRUDUlY/ElK6pEWnLz4o7ndy4XWo8HNo6yGD9ghHu+Pe3LiEJ+gcsxVZAYzFSbGe6Jxq2OGIOeVEtQp1ITfFzzegOZCtVoQPbNO37T6bGM9B3podQTbVwoTR7B1m9IrKOWG5f1uB4DeyZaB9AWJp7slu8U06/NhmYG/aFnXFu/DMbbzAaicLhLIYKAm7QI5Np7yJLF/30WzzQpNPld9qKGTeTFWqd/z4CCXA==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tKGU6-0006pR-Kq; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 07:34:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 1/1] rfc: Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: zimon.toutoune@gmail.com, mail@cbanes.net, ludo@gnu.org, guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 12:34:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 74736 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , Simon Tournier , Christopher Baines , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= X-Debbugs-Original-Xcc: Simon Tournier , Christopher Baines , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173366118926166 (code B ref 74736); Sun, 08 Dec 2024 12:34:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2024 12:33:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49940 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tKGTE-0006nx-CP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 07:33:09 -0500 Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([194.63.252.55]:37983) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tKGTB-0006nG-My for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 07:33:06 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xn--no-cja.eu; s=ds202402; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=muTZR5F98QIptrUDIUIpa0Jddp88XqhNSmZiaNUXYes=; b=A LoUXHFGkmLSncQMrAeakZS/Reb0ab5Z+txjfq5+YzdtEbOaAZGRrEmZFxsntM96WqBNGZ2L+kPk3R Ft9FeLFHq4hgCGU0aVttKfvk+ysIf0Hhf/lm/YjfeMhtohqqJtusbccoFJO3rbm/52eq69NBMNfx4 j6Hvv8m40JMaXCVVXXuYX72bhIor8jIWM2B7Lxe34HxHffLVsRQ5hM/xoWEW9ObWKHNlZ+pH0Ygn4 JdwLXw92RRI0YVVeiO+kGb1Xnfd2NrSMIn7rzJzhhdB6ZpF0Ty4n5olIuV/XcSITZJkPRqONTlcLB Odi4TlJJSG7s2dZSHvnA+N+dguIXT81SA==; Received: from smtp by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) id 1tKGQx-000bYj-2r; Sun, 08 Dec 2024 13:30:47 +0100 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 13:31:43 +0100 Message-ID: <09ff9f31af0575ba5223bf713f166101e79b8d99.1733614983.git.noelopez@free.fr> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-to: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez X-ACL-Warn: , =?utf-8?q?No=C3=A9_Lopez_via_Guix-patches?= From: =?utf-8?q?No=C3=A9_Lopez_via_Guix-patches?= via Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 1.54 X-Spam-Score: 1.54 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 4AAC546300 X-TUID: F2l/6t3guIZj From: Simon Tournier * rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt: New file. * rfc/0000-template.txt: New file. Co-authored-by: Noé Lopez Change-Id: Ide88e70dc785ab954ccb42fb043625db12191208 --- rfc/0000-template.txt | 76 +++++++++++++ rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt | 232 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 308 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfc/0000-template.txt create mode 100644 rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt diff --git a/rfc/0000-template.txt b/rfc/0000-template.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8c4077e753 --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0000-template.txt @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +# -*- mode:org -*- +#+TITLE: +#+DATE: + ++ Issue: ++ Status: ++ Supporter: ++ Co-supporter(s): + +* Summary + +A one-paragraph explanation. Main sales pitch. + +* Motivation + +Describe the problem·s this RFC attempts to address as clearly as possible and +optionally give an example. Explain how the status quo is insufficient or not +ideal. + +* Detail design + +Main part. The sections answers What are the tradeoffs of this proposal +compared to status quo or potential alternatives? Explain details, corner +cases, provide examples. Explain it so that someone familiar can understand. + +It is best to exemplify, contrived example too. If the Motivation section +describes something that is hard to do without this proposal, this is a good +place to show how easy that thing is to do with the proposal. + +** Backward compatibility + +# Christopher Baines: +# I'm struggling to think of exactly how backwards compatibility would +# apply to potential RFCs for Guix. + +Will your proposed change cause a behaviour change? Assess the expected +impact on existing code on the following scale: + +0. No breakage +1. Breakage only in extremely rare cases (exotic or unknown cases) +2. Breakage in rare cases (user living in cutting-edge) +3. Breakage in common cases + +Explain why the benefits of the change outweigh the costs of breakage. +Describe the migration path. Consider specifying a compatibility warning for +one or more releases. Give examples of error that will be reported for +previously-working cases; do they make it easy for users to understand what +needs to change and why? + +The aim is to explicitely consider beforehand potential Backward Compatibility +issue. + +** Forward compatibility + +# Christopher Baines: +# I do think it's worth explicitly bringing up something like the "cost of +# reverting". That is, it's important to discuss things more if there's a +# high cost to changing the approach later. For these "high cost of later +# change" situations, the RFC process will probably be particularly +# valuable. + +# Noé Lopez: +# I think this section could apply very well to governance proposals. + +How will your proposed change evolve with time? What is the cost of changing +the approach later? + +* Unresolved questions + +Explicitly list any remaining issues. At submitting time, be upfront and +trust that the community will help. At reviewing time, this section tracks +the details about the status of the process. + +At the end of the process, this section will be empty. If not, please be +explicit with the known issues by adding a dedicated subsection under Detail +design. diff --git a/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..4282e84230 --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt @@ -0,0 +1,232 @@ +# -*- mode:org -*- +#+TITLE: Request-For-Comment process +#+DATE: 2023-10-31 + ++ Issue: 66844 ++ Status: pending ++ Supporter: Simon Tournier ++ Co-supporters: + +* Summary + +The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent +and structured path for major changes and features to enter the Guix project, +so that all stakeholders can make decisions collectively and be confident +about the direction it is evolving in. + +* Motivation + +The current way that we add new features to Guix has been good for early +development, but it is starting to show its limits as Guix becomes a broadly +used system with many contributors. Changes might be slowed down by the lack +of structure to acquire consensus. This is a proposal for a more principled +RFC process to make it a more integral part of the overall development +process, and one that is followed consistently to introduce substantial +features. + +There are a number of changes that are significant enough that they could +benefit from wider community consensus before being introduced. Either +because they introduce new concepts, big changes or are controversial enough +that not everybody will consent on the direction to take. + +Therefore, the purpose of this RFC is to introduce a process that allows to +bring the discussion upfront and strengthen decisions. This RFC is used to +bootstrap the process and further RFCs can be used to refine the process. + +Note that this process does not cover most of the changes. It covers +significant changes, for some examples: + + + change of inputs style + (Removing input labels from package definitions, #49169) + + introduction of =guix shell= and deprecation of =guix environment= + (Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment', #50960) + + introduction of authentication mechanism (Trustable "guix pull", #22883) + + changes in policy (Add "Deprecation Policy", #72840) + + collaboration via team and branch-features + (several places mailing list guix-devel) + +* Detail design + +** When you need to follow this process + +This process is followed when one intends to make "substantial" changes to the +Guix project. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on +community norms, but may include the following. + + + Changes that modify user-facing interfaces that may be relied on + + Command-line interfaces + + Core Scheme interfaces + + Big restructuring of packages + + Hard to revert changes + + Governance and changes to the way we collaborate + +Certain changes do not require an RFC: + + - Adding, updating packages, removing outdated packages + - Fixing security updates and bugs that don't break interfaces + +A patch submission to Debbugs that contains any of the afore-mentioned +substantial changes may be asked to first submit a RFC. + +** How the process works + + 1. Clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git + 2. Copy rfc/0000-template.org to rfc/00XY-good-name.org where good-name is + descriptive but not too long and XY increments + 3. Fill RFC + 4. Submit to guix-patches@gnu.org + 5. Announce your RFC to guix-devel@gnu.org + +Make sure the proposal is as well-written as you would expect the final +version of it to be. It does not mean that all the subtilities must be +considered at this point since that is the aim of review discussion. It means +that the RFC process is not a prospective brainstorming and the proposal +formalize an idea for making it happen. + +The submission of a proposal does not require an implementation. However, to +improve the chance of a successful RFC, it might be recommended to have an +idea for implementing it. If an implementation is attached to the detailed +design, it might help the discussion. + +At this point, at least one other person must volunteer to be "co-supporter". +The aim is to improve the chances that the RFC is both desired and likely to +be implemented. + +Once supporter and co-supporter(s) are committed in the RFC process, the +review discussion starts. Advertisement of the RFC on the mailing-lists +guix-devel is mandatory and IRC and other Guix communities are recommended. + +After a number of rounds of review, the discussion should settle and a general +consensus should emerge. If the RFC is successful then authors may contribute +to the implementation. This bit is left intentionally vague and should be +refined in the future. + +A successful RFC is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean +the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the +major stakeholders have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it. + +An unsuccessful RFC is *not* a judgment on the value of the work, so a refusal +should rather be interpreted as “let’s discuss again with a different angle”. +The last state of an unsuccessful RFC is archived under the directory +rfc/withdrawn/. + +** Co-supporter + +A co-supporter is a contributor sufficiently familiar with the project’s +practices, hence it is recommended, but not mandatory, to be a contributor +with commit access. The co-supporter helps the supporter, they are both +charged with keeping the proposal moving through the process. The +co-supporter role is to help the proposal supporter by being the timekeeper +and helps in pushing forward until process completion. + +The co-supporter doesn't necessarily have to agree with all the points of the +RFC but should generally be satisfied that the proposed additions are a good +thing for the community. + +The Guix projects ensures that a team of co-supporters – the RFC team – remain +available for any new RFCs that don’t find any co-supporters. This team +should be added to the etc/teams.scm file. + +** Timeline + +The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following periods: + submission (7d) ⟶ comments (30–60d) ⟶ last call (14d) ⟶ withdrawn OR final + +*** Submission + +The author submits their proposal to the patches mailing list and the RFC team +which will read the proposal and can advise the author on improving their RFC. +This first round of review is provided only to help the author and should not +reflect personal bias or opinions. + +If seven days have passed without answer or the author thinks that his +RFC is ready then he may move on to the comment period. + +*** Comment + +The author publishes their RFC to guix-devel and starts a discussion period of +at least 30 days. It is up to the supporter and co-supporter to ensure that +sufficient discussion is solicited. Make sure that all have the time for +expressing their comments. The proposal is about significant changes, thus +more time is better than less. + +The author is encouraged to publish updated versions of their RFC at any point +during the discussion period. + +Once the discussion goes stale or after 60 days, the author should publish or +keep their final version and move into the last call period. + +*** Last call + +The author publishes a final version of the RFC and a 14 day period is given +for people to express their agreement or disagreement. If a positive +consensus is reached the RFC becomes final and the changes should be applied +in less than six months. + +If no consensus can be reached or the changes were not applied in less than +six months, the RFC becomes withdrawn and is archived. The author may also +withdraw their RFC at any point. + +** Decision making: consensus + +It is expected from all contributors, and even more so from committers, to +help build consensus and make decisions based on consensus. By using +consensus, we are committed to finding solutions that everyone can live with. + +It implies that no decision is made against significant concerns and these +concerns are actively resolved with proposals that work for everyone. A +contributor, without or with commit access, wishing to block a proposal bears +a special responsibility for finding alternatives, proposing ideas/code or +explaining the rationale for the status quo. + +To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer +details, you are encouraged to read +. + +** Merging the outcome + +Once a consesus is made, a committer should do the following to merge the RFC: + + 1. Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links for the + original Debbugs submission. + 2. Commit everything. + 3. Announce the establishment of the RFC to all the stakeholders. + 4. Ensure the RFC is applied within six months. + +** Template of RFC + +# Ludovic Courtès: +# I’d go for one format, preferably Markdown because we have a library to +# parse it. + +The structure of the RFC is captured by the template; see the file +rfc/0000-template.txt. It is recommended to write using markup language as, +for example, Org-mode or Markdown or reStructuredText. + +** Backward Compatibility + +None. + +** Forward compatibility + +The RFC process can be refined by further RFCs. + +** Drawbacks + +There is a risk that the additional process will hinder contribution more than +it would help. We should stay alert that the process is only a way to help +contribution, not an end in itself. + +Of course, group decision-making processes are difficult to manage. + +The ease of commenting may bring a slightly diminished signal-to-noise ratio +in collected feedback, particularly on easily bike-shedded topics. + +** Open questions + +There are still questions regarding the desired scope of the process. While +we want to ensure that changes which affect the users are well-considered, we +certainly don't want the process to become unduly burdensome. This is a +careful balance which will require care to maintain moving forward. + +* Unresolved questions -- 2.46.0