From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:306:2d92::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id eBU3DvVUKGU70gAAauVa8A:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:20:05 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:306:2d92::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id eBU3DvVUKGU70gAAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:20:05 +0200 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 34FB032198 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:20:02 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=dpIOUscO; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1697142005; h=from:from:sender:sender: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=tWJ7vL0Ae7JcW+sFe4qWp3ZoIr38SRBpICkCSyVhWSs=; b=GeJ9pu9Jkh/wouRNk0UOEX5HRW6Tnq+dCiF4VlsryD9hqgXqGhFRBmFfcvYVbE7d5OcGOU A8hsrnPPTxNNdcjrPBw+r8Io32z0TWp6otu9FvrIsF+3VoSeRszh1xPy8n1NKUH6giWEui M6Kovx5NFS9+cQfjnwsKyuJNWMZlh+RyCStcU47LYY2nc2RtSV3MibBwf5Vo1rpoW9uIAt /ZtM2G63Bo9NaobybIdNFjrmEcOj3dQbZ/teGMa4eovQcNOOT9KxEfPAPDqiP8PTPhsHVW er5rQZb9/XUHvnVGUJb0L48fyim22YuFwvENGeclhm7LK+/Kb8R8ICluEqbHMQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=dpIOUscO; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1697142005; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=RgrpVH9iCIFWpSNpxSkwmmLwQTq6Ugy4JBtpaHTZ4sSxBc4vk3rjZvDmFhwcJFLjzEGvHV /xVEevpZzG4BkyRdcxwNDK3NqiOVyoJmKF03GnNp6KL+1wmNztNNzPZBFFq0GUMyUwapYx gKzR7hpZl1cQz1QO3NUtm/jt/9PBvr0eYwDEmA2TualvH0qr6a/Y8XuFZfpYGP9T+BLBBv UWzoGLKyWXDNhUvXna53Rg44hCMUWF2ntK4YvhKsLJuFMzYPwy9AZ8fAGr3SKzArVoexat 5B6T2o4WsAHGzuNCSH3TBp7tEhCvbfq8V+TieMDYoWvSIuNS5fFD7q8+eiwQoQ== Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qr29m-0002sZ-9J; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:19:42 -0400 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 1qr29k-0002rL-FX for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:19:40 -0400 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 1qr29k-0000Rx-5f for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:19:40 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qr2A6-00033N-AM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:20:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#66430] Wording v2 (was Re: [bug#66430] [PATCH] doc: Mention the responsibilities that blocking comes with.) Resent-From: Simon Tournier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 20:20:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 66430 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Maxim Cournoyer Cc: 66430@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 66430-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B66430.169714194411409 (code B ref 66430); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 20:20:02 +0000 Received: (at 66430) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Oct 2023 20:19:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44342 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qr299-0002xv-9T for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:19:03 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]:41149) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1qr292-0002x8-IC for 66430@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 16:19:02 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-405e48d8e72so3441035e9.0 for <66430@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:18:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1697141908; x=1697746708; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=tWJ7vL0Ae7JcW+sFe4qWp3ZoIr38SRBpICkCSyVhWSs=; b=dpIOUscO5/TIXcWqyHLU3Wiq7FsgnTWpFQSUYLut/Qj3fKLM2dKMw2WWxHTsYmibF1 Cmddcv9Cyf7BCGbOO0cFfBR9LeYlGH4Wp7HbF9iKMsFH+mhsgrGUy48FhVMS9O+7vEKp IXXRiMM8BbAjybPyWYdHz9SQExx42VW2Q/Bb1/cUYIfYQfxAcPYGnXFMGtQodUTiWYoO TrM8PrcRQycEs/i36x6zrKmWEeNAdXIPpSCeD6gj+6+Jmc/KGPuF1Y8LmTczURVLZUvQ PsGr2xHf1CvOky51/r75akbfutKPlC/JQgGNTcEZ394983k+rITnrp10AmcaD3NOKRvy mf/g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1697141908; x=1697746708; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tWJ7vL0Ae7JcW+sFe4qWp3ZoIr38SRBpICkCSyVhWSs=; b=lqiswBJltZOaMKCmwR4Qq+GguMfsqmrdx8gq8bgWrFUCrU6OOXEdlHLTlxxi3udGXg TmbDEejyZj2JiMPajIwTKNcsuChJYpnbfvwMmiPgB5IPRm2Ffypn4586dvmxxY3ujWQn yPortmydoDex6xyOTa72UOvAuPi6/M9pzaN1XFkHbZhHQLc7MmPnRIKVCI01/7cap2gE 2mJ6k5BX7Oep1ob3lax/1WKueLD/GQD1DeV8gXF8/iHEVqYU2ZggyIrJP5yYq2peWuGE 0fTeTOTG3EDNBBD1zRUU5oq/cfeei9Kv4bgC01deUwbsGD1wHE8dn/UdGnT+qq3beEE9 sZJA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwJudUNcVo0dXtn1ELKxe4fE9Aazku+VZthaQ4jZM6XEN48iuX/ l9Gyi5GPA9lmMOTexwHOY7VHZpCQMVY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGcY/yhVzRS/5Hgauqk/euSwS6CokOw95bGAvD/c6Ltx9ygst9qn56szwa7wQr1OxwSTjfQ7g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b9a:b0:3fe:21a6:a18 with SMTP id n26-20020a05600c3b9a00b003fe21a60a18mr22495211wms.3.1697141907794; Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p16-20020a1c7410000000b0040586360a36sm684260wmc.17.2023.10.12.13.18.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Oct 2023 13:18:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Tournier In-Reply-To: <86mswnzm4d.fsf@gmail.com> References: <5760a46dfc1b97312d1d5512ebf1bd21da6707f5.1696903067.git.maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> <87h6mwrhl6.fsf@gnu.org> <86mswnzm4d.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 22:18:24 +0200 Message-ID: <86fs2fzjan.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: , 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-Spam-Score: 2.83 X-Spam-Score: 2.83 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 34FB032198 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx2.migadu.com X-TUID: I7RhhSm51qqG Hi, Re-reading the complete section (and other sections around), I am proposing a tiny variation of the wording I sent earlier. On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 at 21:17, Simon Tournier wro= te: >>> +@url{https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus}. The project uses t= he >>> +@samp{Requiring people who block to help find solutions} block variant, >>> +which means a participant wishing to block a proposal bears a >>> +special responsibility for finding alternatives and proposing ideas/co= de >>> +to resolve the deadlock. Instead of Maxim=E2=80=99s wording above, I am proposing: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 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 detailing the status quo to resolve the deadlock. To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer details, you are encouraged to read . --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >> A situation I have in mind is this: a volunteer >> writes a review describing issues with a proposed change that have no >> obvious solution, or rejecting the change altogether (for instance >> because it=E2=80=99s deemed outside the scope of the project or tool). >> >> How would one interpret the reviewer=E2=80=99s responsibility in this ca= se? Case 1: a volunteer writes a review describing issues with a proposed change that have no obvious solution Question: How would one interpret the reviewer=E2=80=99s responsibility? Answer: Be engaging, + propose an alternative: idea or code + explain the status quo Since there is no obvious solution, the reviewer=E2=80=99s responsibility = =E2=80=93 propose an alternative or explain the status quo =E2=80=93 helps in iterati= ng. Question: How would one interpret the participant=E2=80=99s responsibility? Answer: Be engaging: + explain why they cannot live with the proposed change + propose an alternative: idea or code At last resort, since there is no obvious solution, and if there is no consensus =E2=80=93 someone cannot live with and has significant concerns = =E2=80=93 then it is up to maintainers to resolve by =C2=AB Making decisions, about code or anything, when consensus cannot be reached. We=E2=80=99ve probably never encountered such a situation before, though! =C2=BB Case 2: a volunteer writes a review rejecting the change altogether (for instance because it=E2=80=99s deemed outside the scope of the project or to= ol) Question: How would one interpret the reviewer=E2=80=99s responsibility? Answer: Be engaging: + explain the status quo Please note that it is a group effort. Therefore, if other people do not participate in the discussion and there is no consensus, it means this case falls under =C2=AB Informal hierarchy =C2=BB. That=E2=80=99s ano= ther question and orthogonal with reviewer=E2=80=99s responsibility, IMHO. WDYT? Cheers, simon