From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id yDc8I8wPaGeYGwAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:10:36 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id yDc8I8wPaGeYGwAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:10:36 +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="i6TMR/4E"; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="I xJfCwL"; 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=1734873036; 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=mfAHPd/WPrDesscp2v0vKnLYPKa0v2LXUO9ZV8xud1c=; b=HJJRX20INB1TWY5fz0gIYAF3yaKoKAYcm6vG8nAlizjd77qJtgjD9CepwJanutwemC2sWm fIZ9HtkzI8hiwJPot7mWgX/j+CyI4LLZQ/XyGxCA8QuIUS5dMnHPEiMT2R/zg7t/bx42jP rHkNKWZgc8xlh1KKnNnae6fSlXZV684y9YVsI9Z3J2uEB82ow6Gsx8r1+63r8atVuqzpO6 hF8GGjB4VTrvztR0JX2DKSEzCqt3cU3J5AQEqO0yXqpDi6SofDQI8lbLemuR2eDZhjydfl hL6Lq6UdGLbFi0m0SGMj9rTICnNE+dc5ML1+Hb/PDQqEKAUJa3mol2qibUiO/w== 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="i6TMR/4E"; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="I xJfCwL"; 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=1734873036; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=s0ZPhmIcTbd+WutG0uIO+6Zrp8GuV+pcPTHzrB5wH3Mgb+TuqeBSOot19BKcNIqjHp0AVg 4xnSz9QN7QhYpItlUxlRWX1njHcuVfvnSxKowKHO2XhhvhRVCdx1KARGXPdWEmDVsJJKIT 2VD5dWdn5uMQtaGvbEjtbOrsx96OVDrzv+8yihpEd25ZrOPA7r50X/RmRcCk6sk9HEDrdE wN9XzPnzDrbujt/dOzL48da8fpWJ46wM9/OXVEBHBGZbJyJ5jpgtMCQfCcBpRImg6qUm6s x2x9P/7cOTk2JVwYR7kI9WOFkUxeuUAqmkSBet29I7gMQmQafgUUVvYrT/Pa5g== 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 E903D22E0E for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:10:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tPLiB-0000vy-Nl; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:09:38 -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 1tPLgi-0000aL-Ft for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:08:10 -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 1tPLgi-0002Iz-4S for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:08:04 -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:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:To:Subject; bh=mfAHPd/WPrDesscp2v0vKnLYPKa0v2LXUO9ZV8xud1c=; b=i6TMR/4EgEf48MMbcbFF6ELhRwcYcIaMlC5wCnWnqzE41pxkNMGzZLoH6VWpXVnAWzZeQJm4CkIDSlgYIQ+YF3YnsVRv2x1rVO94p8MM8glscJvsH4HKls4oKNjyRlDUS+L9SnXD3gFiwYWHDUQKcG06YQ4hSlR0GBuM1mnpsLHv50Up2/GtCCe2jqaA0w/vRN3wnaL5WDTgp9bDe/jRLke0KBqU7pe+DhKdPHCTXz4O+dJ6buLs4d1mMBbUR+e+LMQcWIR8jMGghvwdK16LMwzICGchESIPe18mk6KFFdkixgBS+GsrYgPIitCeQsZxoAs0/+mICKJqif/F36WY7w==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tPLgf-0003Ao-W8 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:08:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v3] rfc: Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:08:01 +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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Simon Tournier Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173487287312178 (code B ref 74736); Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:08:01 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Dec 2024 13:07:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49362 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tPLgW-0003AL-H1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:07:52 -0500 Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([194.63.252.55]:39023) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tPLgS-0003A3-BB for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:07:51 -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:Message-ID:Date:References:In-Reply-To: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=mfAHPd/WPrDesscp2v0vKnLYPKa0v2LXUO9ZV8xud1c=; b=I xJfCwL/bLFLyWCrqGkIqWJRB74PjJ2zhyvF3+MChIysMUL+7Psg9FnReiQMlXJ9lMUIEckDi4s8A/ /xk/TQDd0OQmJfUEH8z5/Vd7unJvxF+zJacK884/ZD++vgS1ejd5wxaAjd2QQGFK1Jp2C6sixHIeX 5KrIXBdDzZXkefb57nS0PAbQHIF4ZPHUYbqghhTZTyWstsS5Guo++e//2BU/3Dgak/jFKRRiSc+3g wUAa6nOGVfwRRBio+LRAboAV6BFcV5PoMeorPczcwxWxwixDoy1ucL5vvkc4JsKQoj/VJRqcUwN6/ KJp9EG0NFWcD1Eae5yiJk1czcT/0bXJAQ==; Received: from smtp by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) id 1tPLeF-00DKQX-EA; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:05:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: <493bcc076f206ec134959268f55a9358b4886b88.1734031781.git.zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> References: <493bcc076f206ec134959268f55a9358b4886b88.1734031781.git.zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:06:56 +0100 Message-ID: <8734ifdfyn.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> 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: , 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-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.52 X-Spam-Score: -3.52 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: E903D22E0E X-TUID: z/eH5hhqVi6e Simon Tournier writes: > +** Timeline > + > +The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended peri= ods: What does recommended mean in this case? Do you mean that someone can skip any period they want or reduce the time if consesus is reached or something else? > +It moves to the last call period. > + > +*** Last call (up to 14 days) There should be a lower limit. > + > +The author publishes a final version of the RFC and a last grace period = of 14 > +days is granted. People are asked to agree or disagree by commenting: > + > + - +1 / LGTM: I support > + - =3D0 / LGTM: I will live with it > + - -1: I disagree with this proposal > + > +At least half of people with commit acces must express their voice with = the > +keys above during this last call. We need to be sure that the RFC had b= een > +read by people committed to take care of the project, since it proposes = an > +important change. I would add that a person with commit access that does not vote counts as +1 or =3D0. Though I doubt if a voting process like this is good for consensus: if 5 people are for and 4 against it should not pass. I like Ludo=E2=80=99s idea of using teams, but I fear that for some changes people might not care enough to have even 25% of them vote.