From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id yETAHmeLcmfp2AAAe85BDQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:00:39 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2.migadu.com with LMTPS id yETAHmeLcmfp2AAAe85BDQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:00:39 +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=h8Kbf8Fj; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="t bObf5b"; 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=1735560039; 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=NHYyIjUz2vwbmWEFMk/uz7AtcSIMxXZ4TdwTA6f86LQ=; b=FbjxOp7vypwMHYHCQcr+wTYBu26ct/LfenxH2O4u023DkD10ISJ2F8QrVtehdyXenmIKK7 xCobdcKZ0iaaU3OdFpUcivUw2bu6E49cyuPeFLcyK4JOMZurdsxEYPTTaUEVF9p1Yju0K2 l5eTtvH8eDR5FF+vLOzj8ls2zPWnqU350+ZZ6/KhbUzsaMRdJ5nXZjFep3YppxoFqphbTc shOwXMlOu0DmpIRW3oA04litdRJv947SpL44SY8FqM9Swfizu4Pnp+3eiCWZryRtCcf8oR OrNqgvPSsGDiF6P2v/WBIgFdM5LTYaktkmjzAl33qXkow1tPWkhh0Md0e18m5Q== 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=h8Kbf8Fj; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="t bObf5b"; 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=1735560039; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Rcb6RXfwk2cNmfnp4sIMqOsrjqT/lG9gall1P/Dzk7ovSVxO+sWZdqo+EFt0wN5CfVGQLf 0Nf7lOFG9O9+IGVSSDm0e4CUxVngbJ4T6/DkRXjI/j6/wXMaIy7YHWkU75OWpfonXEEUM4 0gWeuTYj9HQr3SV802gbUg8NIUUd1ehpOC5Yf/aHXuPA7op2Q/uBwzF4GnHZiWz4o839vg ZA++WVtJRdBg4aLT4ekIGtQExoOiKjFMvQwKpBowgnpvl5EE1ETZYaJooYtSUVmlynM3iF XhJ84BRNgLrr5OOIVROohLgNXiKCOKNECz1PO7BA8eAi2ARwH6tSlKt33/G0Pg== 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 EDFD29DEA1 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 13:00:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSERJ-00075W-UF; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 07:00:07 -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 1tSERH-00070k-K6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 07:00:03 -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 1tSERH-00011p-8p for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 07:00:03 -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=NHYyIjUz2vwbmWEFMk/uz7AtcSIMxXZ4TdwTA6f86LQ=; b=h8Kbf8Fjqeef7GtJNgy+xVUwLs7PUhHdOyNd6uJQfLutr+YrJExyM93n/QXp/WRZbAHuaxxwUW6/2lhmP+VLgZ2/H+G0CAXwltvX7M+KrXs6KiTBs3MdwU6G0nTybuMIX7XkHjCA2pMsSBgpYNA8WoAqOZZEQaoyJ0qxFQZJI9dUPKDrGfM8oesF03Lha/PsfhxG0Uvg3bQ0qPguMW5Efl2jgBKRx4FI3NuHGrbXGSLlz45OH1fzOv52aMTj2I5Bh47s7na6Tb7kQC6pwbaDrLJCzd8m36kGu+xWkwqA/0mgwOqF5xKoyA9FPA5Fd62KmcyUvtThzkQMfjkLk785ow==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSERG-0005Hv-PE for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 07:00:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] 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: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:00:02 +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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173555998320251 (code B ref 74736); Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:00:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2024 11:59:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57584 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSEQw-0005GY-Um for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:59:43 -0500 Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([194.63.252.55]:51839) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSEQu-0005GD-1x for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:59:41 -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=NHYyIjUz2vwbmWEFMk/uz7AtcSIMxXZ4TdwTA6f86LQ=; b=t bObf5bWv0mvOVjXzQPx+P839HqbLxae4vanq3GHyoKcEZc738Cvr7rIzYE1Tjt1TW7QM/94vxgYT4 N/oHOzsOA7UpGmhqs7tiQxStb6hqYUH3tlSdoxNu0x1Pbmv6Y598toJZHMXHwE6j2bIWWpihQ4DEN nevRzYT6b0VCRR6OQf9LK013BM8GF79KRS1lHzHPPjByfQqvtv9x/5e2vbGOu6f8f9p+wQp/zFz3+ HhTooq+YygS2nSkkyUJg1sIQkF3kohqR0OpIblfw9BDPfYy1+xig8hPeYu57bTNwvJaYWgKe7JUrL 67SQv2Btztcqb+mKQ1HO7yOb4Jk1LakIA==; Received: from smtp by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) id 1tSEOi-008oes-1C; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:57:24 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87seq5tou6.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87ikraea0f.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87wmfifii5.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> <87seq5tou6.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:58:46 +0100 Message-ID: <875xn14c21.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-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -6.70 X-Spam-Score: -6.70 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: EDFD29DEA1 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx10.migadu.com X-TUID: ckRGeQc3zpWP Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > OK. As I wrote in my reply to Simon, my thought here was that =E2=80=9Cv= oting=E2=80=9D* > would give a clear and unambiguous way, not subject to interpretation, > to decide whether the RFC is withdrawn: it=E2=80=99s easier to add number= s than > to determine whether =E2=80=9Ca positive consensus is reached=E2=80=9D (c= urrent > wording). > This is why an ACK/NACK system works great in my opinion: you send =E2=80= =9CACK=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNACK=E2=80=9D litteraly so your opinion is clear. And you can = just count the number of each, without implying a vote. > But I don=E2=80=99t know, I guess that=E2=80=99s an =E2=80=9CI will live = with it=E2=80=9D from me on > this one. :-) > > Two other issue I raised was the quorum: Simon proposed half of the > committers; I propose 25% of team members. Thoughts? > I don=E2=80=99t have the experience to judge, but I would just do =E2=80=9C= as long as no one is against it its good=E2=80=9D. The reason is that I=E2=80=99m afraid that people might just not participate because they are fine with an RFC or don=E2=80=99t care, and so it would ju= st get stuck there. If you look at this RFC, we are four participants, how many will we get after the finalization? Half of the committers is 25 people (based on .guix-authorizations), and a quarter of the team members is 10. Personnally, I have trouble imagining that this amount of people will come to send a mail to the RFC. > * Maybe =E2=80=9Cvoting=E2=80=9D is misleading; =E2=80=9Cdeliberation=E2= =80=9D might be clearer. > >>> 2. on the submission -> withdrawn transition, in case nobody supports >>> the RFC. > > [...] > >> I agree with that timeline, but I would have just =E2=80=9Cforgotten=E2= =80=9D an RFC >> that doesn=E2=80=99t pass the submission period, since that would mean i= t is not >> good enough to be discussed. It can just be kept in the mail archives >> like any other unfinished idea. >> >> A withdrawn RFC would mean keeping it in the rfc/withdrawn directory. > > Oh right, forgotten/dismissed seems more appropriate than withdrawn > here. > > Anyway, I think we should aim for finalization of v1 of the RFC process > by, say, Jan. 15th. I will dedicate some time to tweak the wording, and > then we can call it a thing. > Good idea! I=E2=80=99ll be waiting for your v5 then. And then I can bring back the RFC template. > (A bit sad that it=E2=80=99s just the three of us talking, we wouldn=E2= =80=99t have the > quorum here=E2=80=A6) > Agreed. Lastly, do we want to move the RFCs to a separate git repository? Have a nice day, No=C3=A9