From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id CIhoArJsgGfMvAAAe85BDQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:41:22 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2.migadu.com with LMTPS id CIhoArJsgGfMvAAAe85BDQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 01:41:22 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=aLAVkVIg; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=debian.org header.s=1.vagrant.user header.b=ML9L9nx3; 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=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1736469681; 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: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=okQReD75ye7kXklPZcvUlbQUH2jDdMZ4sqTrUvqtLPM=; b=tfV+MO7dRKq5GIJYQm8r7Nd1cZKbiWtNtE3IOKXvw5794Jh2Ol6lpxx0DPi44uuonniPUZ 0UG2fM2H4DG3sFACHlcjlMdrcSnZ6PtE3s8vOrWoJOEUgj4mXwqTgifgz1tAqNc6ENG8A+ uPhf5XN619ExdHbgmQyjnYGTQ3SBzWXl8EZEx+5fMtKrMLwhPnvdnyZzJVWjGXJjIDnAuN Eqi+iqQz4qyL+q9XUok0I1R6kHhcI44dlsKLT3tX+CjOY95tIlBw68xxpJkLrdVNJ58XqV LrwpA2Gse+g5XjLciAiP6bkMFJP6yYm6hcHrrmf1aWtLfcXullD5sMhQLMPTVw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=aLAVkVIg; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=debian.org header.s=1.vagrant.user header.b=ML9L9nx3; 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=none ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1736469681; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=mOVkkwF9/8UJslevXfs4mWb4Ds3R17P6mzCMOQQ9wVBEZ/X6Up/u7ADScLygSQOqwsUw3F KwNNEG5I0GWH2ewB+Qf138dEObmgwNbu88PUEVjmBi0Jpy7Mb125VmpjiClWCIQBHTaPJc nNWVRg2uFif9GCYsOER4lr/oIPSWyIdVFeHeuhyFjAF4smgnI74aAgAG5vEjBTCmRBLhBU pniVsCtFXPyD/tRHFdXfjmO98r36v2TxKUg9rgz8NCYWXWfucSd3YWCcby0eYF0zHlzt0v q0I0Jdh2Y9DVxYzfZJrm10dsZDDL9W5yL5lE9pcMlnlY8oj4w1+4/rTohzZttQ== 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 B9C898CCCB for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2025 01:41:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tW35F-00049C-Nn; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:41:06 -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 1tW35C-00048Z-RM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:41:03 -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 1tW35C-0004J7-IY for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:41:02 -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=okQReD75ye7kXklPZcvUlbQUH2jDdMZ4sqTrUvqtLPM=; b=aLAVkVIgJgEUTnitdFyo7U+ThH+8Wg3pn/N8z+SUOCUPdnN1jqTEi9qZvFV9xGO277bcdkgZLJd6YpeBq6vABUdZI1Nm6vPFLVBuzi2S23KYzOlvaGYVlopmeVmBzFJiY9xrkhiIrfjQmSNrIJ9Qdfr6wcM5x5IQwgMUyNH9LpFBiSjRiHVMG0nLDjpDLpNtm4V0gmRri/fcLRFHvUwV0mHoetn3+J/ozExPoeE99x6fLEpuujZ2v7AT+WP2h0HpAxYhgtTKo+A0V6yFfAAHiG8e+V3c7dmuSBlDfy8v+rAAHbhgNq6iLC3BWdrCINcrHh9X2xzAv/TS3/FHkQ7JKA==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tW35B-0008IM-V2 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:41:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process. Resent-From: Vagrant Cascadian Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:41:01 +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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , Christopher Baines , Simon Tournier Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173646965931871 (code B ref 74736); Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:41:01 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Jan 2025 00:40:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55523 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tW359-0008Hy-12 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:40:59 -0500 Received: from cascadia.aikidev.net ([173.255.214.101]:38968) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tW357-0008Hi-Ab for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 19:40:57 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=debian.org; s=1.vagrant.user; t=1736469648; bh=f9r7ujw5KSX1++gk79hi0giqhv4h6Q0wo0OoLG5jqlw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=ML9L9nx3Fw3UtyWLnEN03mCCxvAiKBAsuWFCl48n3MaQHlEbNDAfJJ/j7s1iT5lTb NBzmVwIhp2xrwRWLwXxXaAu4NDaMqOyNKn76mJelfLLU7475STcvjxci4IVDzRm61S aWy5flOyEMY9OSI/iW9LNsgqaVximllXr9L0HLiXQsCj8mRth3eWaYbF/S75juOlUD F8ksn2Ez876Adj/pLnRemLGuN4rupCN0S8o4BsuVx8L8lcknAPLZeIDb40Y1tN6RPD 67WrJ0EPiODB3bXgiB6qterk+TJ6jyBBdn7bTu+YvDHwnwVRFdDdHsBSIqa4kycjg/ WrxRWRchRTg1A== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:21:7:77:0:50]) by cascadia.aikidev.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEA134F89; Thu, 9 Jan 2025 16:40:48 -0800 (PST) From: Vagrant Cascadian In-Reply-To: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:40:43 -0800 Message-ID: <878qrjh56c.fsf@wireframe> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Scanner: mx11.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -5.70 X-Spam-Score: -5.70 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: B9C898CCCB X-TUID: Fq/BhXzx+K71 --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Overall, this seems quite good, nice work all! I do have one specific comment... though I am a latecomer to this discussion! On 2025-01-06, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > ### Deliberation Period (14 days) > > All members of any team of the Guix project can participate in > deliberation and are encouraged to do so. > > Once the final version is published, team members have 14 days to send > one of the following replies on the patch-tracking entry of the RFC: > > - =E2=80=9CI support=E2=80=9D, meaning that one supports the proposal); > - =E2=80=9CI accept=E2=80=9D, meaning that one consents to the implementa= tion of the > proposal; > - =E2=80=9CI disapprove=E2=80=9D, meaning that one opposes the implementa= tion of the > proposal. A team member sending this reply must have actively > proposed alternative solutions during the discussion period. > > The RFC is *accepted* if (1) at least 25% of all team members send a > reply, and (2) no one disagrees. In other cases, the RFC is > *withdrawn*. Is 'no one disagrees' =3D=3D 'no one replies with "I disapprove"'? It would be nicer if there were more explicit alignment in the words used to make that clearer, if that is, in fact, the intended case. Perhaps literally... e.g. ... (2) if no one declares "I disapprove". ... Well, two points, apparently, now that I got the simple one out of the way... :) In other consensus settings I have on occasion declared something that is effectively "I accept, but I disapprove" or maybe more descriptively "I accept, with reservations" e.g. not agreeing with the decision but not severely enough that it should not move forward. You might not expect to get much help with implementation from such a person, though! I guess again, it comes to word alignment ... "I disapprove" sounds rather soft, compared to the effects (e.g. blocking further progress or sending it back to the proverbial drawing board). "I accept" sounds rather positive, despite the possibility of some potential discomfort with the decision... Obviously, one can and should declare their reservations as part of the discussion that lead up to that point! Although maybe "I accept" should come with the option to declare formal outstanding concerns? Similarly "I disaprove" should not come out of nowhere; it should be clear why, and perhaps worth having an option to note that in the call for consensus at the end of the Deliberation Period? Eeesh. Three points! I also wonder if there is a supermajority of "I accept" over "I support" this maybe should raise some sort of red flag calling into question the proposal... as that is a very weak consensus and perhaps cause for concern. All that said, I am a latecomer to this process... so take it however is most helpful! Overall, it looks quite good to my eyes. live well, vagrant --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEARYKAB0WIQRlgHNhO/zFx+LkXUXcUY/If5cWqgUCZ4BsiwAKCRDcUY/If5cW qn/2AQDS0ISyEgn6dn73EqpRe0/ICD6LjF1R1Or/XYizvKFlZgEAuGKzrvlcis5q 2LXJmuPEtjAQ7973T6yAUBMY9loWsQk= =fWow -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--