From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: "Noé Lopez" <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>, "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 11:29:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874j2cz147.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v7utxw2a.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu>
Hi Noé,
On Sun, 05 Jan 2025 at 13:51, Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org> wrote:
> To take a realistic example, say I make an RFC for P2P substitute
> distribution with GNUNet/ERIS, this is a big change that requires an RFC
> but I have trouble imagining that ten people in the team members are
> interested in that.
>
> Teams are specialized after all, if I add myself to the games team it
> doesn’t mean I care about RFCs for what would be the core team.
Well, considering this example, I remember a session at Guix Days last
year (or last last year?) when pukkamustard explained ERIS. If I
remember correctly, we were more than 10 people and after the
explanations and questions/answers, we had an informed opinion; I mean I
guess most attendees were able to express either Support, Accept or
Disagree.
For sure, the number of people able to tackle all the implementation
details is probably lower than 10. However, I am confident that more
than 10 team members are skilled enough to build a consensus on any
topic*.
Today, merging a patch is done using “Lazy Consensus“: it assumes
general consent if no responses are posted within a defined period (15
days).
For “significant changes”, we are looking for a “Consensus Approval”.
Therefore, we need a way to define this “Consensus Approval”. That’s
what it’s named “Deliberation Period”: after a “Comment Period” where we
all try to forge an informed opinion (if we are not an expert on the
topic at hand), then we express what we judge the best for the project.
That’s said, maybe 25% is too much? What does it appear to you better?
Cheers,
simon
PS: About “Lazy Consensus” and “Consensus Approval”, see Apache [1]. :-)
*build consensus on any topic: FWIW, I have seen random citizens without
apriori knowledge took complex decisions in Court about crime.
1: https://community.apache.org/committers/decisionMaking.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-06 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-08 12:29 [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-08 12:31 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 1/1] rfc: " Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-12 18:14 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] " Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-12 19:47 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-14 10:06 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-23 17:58 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-26 11:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-09 20:47 ` Artyom V. Poptsov
2024-12-12 19:30 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v3] rfc: " Simon Tournier
2024-12-14 10:47 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-22 13:06 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-22 13:56 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v4 0/1] " Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-22 13:56 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v4 1/1] " Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-23 14:42 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] " Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-23 17:33 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-26 11:28 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-31 15:23 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-29 18:31 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-30 11:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-30 11:58 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-04 17:28 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-05 12:51 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-06 10:29 ` Simon Tournier [this message]
2025-01-06 17:40 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-03 18:14 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v5] rfc: " Simon Tournier
2025-01-06 22:29 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-07 17:06 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
[not found] ` <825F8319-4F41-4F4C-81B3-2C84A73A13CF@housseini.me>
2025-01-08 6:33 ` reza via Guix-patches via
2025-01-07 19:40 ` [bug#74736] Add Request-For-Comment process Ricardo Wurmus
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874j2cz147.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
--cc=74736@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=noe@xn--no-cja.eu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).