From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: "Noé Lopez" <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>, 74736@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 18:33:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877c7qe243.fsf_-_@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ikraea0f.fsf_-_@gnu.org> ("Ludovic Courtès"'s message of "Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:42:24 +0100")
Hi,
On Mon, 23 Dec 2024 at 15:42, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> +### Last call (up to 14 days)
>> +
>> +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
>> +- =0 / LGTM: I will live with it
>> +- -1: I disagree with this proposal
>> +
>> +At least half of people with commit access must express their voice with
>> +the keys above during this last call. We need to be sure that the RFC
>> +had been read by people committed to take care of the project, since it
>> +proposes an important change.
>> +
>> +When a positive consensus is reached, the RFC becomes effective. If not,
>> +the proposal is archived and the status quo continues.
>
> It seems unchanged compared to v3. WDYT of my comments, suggestions,
> and proposed wording:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#9
>
> ?
Quoting:
> I think committers here are mentioned as a simple way to express
> membership and avoid infiltration, but it has the downside of ignoring
> many members and giving committers a special privilege.
It’s not about infiltration, it’s about to be sure that people agree and
do not overlook.
> I propose this definition: anyone who is on a team (in ‘teams.scm’) is a
> voting member*.
I agree.
> We can keep a quorum, but I think 50% of the voters is too ambitious;
> maybe 25%?
Well, I picked 50% almost randomly. ;-) Somehow, I do not have a strong
opinion. My concern is only to be sure that we have a consensus and not
something falling between the cracks.
> This would become¹:
>
> Once the final version is published, team members have 14 days to cast
> one of the following votes about the RFC:
>
> - Support (+1);
> - Accept (0);
> - Reject (-2).
>
> Votes are cast by replying on the patch-tracking entry of the RFC.
>
> The RFC is accepted if (1) at least 25% of the voting members cast a
> vote, and (2) the sum of votes is non-negative. In other cases, the
> RFC is withdrawn.
For me, if we have only one minus, it means we do not have consensus.
Therefore, the person who cannot live with the proposal must be
proactive in finding a solution that we all agree on.
In other words, the numbers are not for being summed, the aim is to
capture:
- Support
- I can with with it
- I cannot live with it
BTW, I do not like the word “Reject” and I prefer “Disagree” or even
better “I cannot live with it”.
> I think we should now make sure we reach consensus on the timeline, and
> in particular:
>
> 1. on the voting process;
Maybe I misunderstand something. From my point, we do not “vote”
because we are trying to work using consensus. When I proposed +1/0/-1
my aim was not to “vote“ but to be sure that the proposal is not
overlooked.
Therefore, instead of “Voting Period”, I would prefer “Replying Period”
or something like that.
WDYT?
Cheers,
simon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-23 18:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ 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
2024-12-09 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 [this message]
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=877c7qe243.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).