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 sBX2DAVffWc1swAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 17:06:13 +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 sBX2DAVffWc1swAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:06:13 +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=nmVFqfT6; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="M BDeKyp"; 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=1736269572; 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=3XU2BBF9J14mrAcboFvPNqKbGp4Leto0nMG2vvRf+Co=; b=l5asBUFEyGZcSHCL3KLm/nQIk1QUmGdYXXIz6uH4K1k+5Ci18AffNUh8oKUbnajNwb9pTm xsA7uk2z8Fr6DzPak9sn1pJgHfe3KtyUTWZM6oFXS18m38bYbYHiRWtMaeFviDVclVu9z2 mMTXI3J2K8iG/RCyFv/P3k5gBFOZhX/fiKd0y4pdsMuono1PBit5PVe1G5saN8/gpHHxIs uFM3Wp68MhWGcJHb+7zOtHkxtPwJ5/KwtDkZSp0jZ3mIDkJ4y0+CudzNb+sGdeZeYzrYol 4LBMTADa2b6CPJ6vVoY2TmvTI09b3dq+xNI6ILbfl3tB53oMspJaxSTZJcFbvQ== 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=nmVFqfT6; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="M BDeKyp"; 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=1736269572; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=Yd7D34S3a4nPhmGKmH/5hVvj5h82v3WqDo0pToR0DeFdeMUIn4yC4o9GJ5grdOiW66IJv7 H451UbcOoUhXyChLHnfTBokjbnhKyTiy++YaWt9TNYPtoV1U0efxi5By+7PRGE8TWOv/FO nmIKFXeRclb7PtVMlljhOSWnC43IFHdoxUZwZ/d0XAK5pHA+1dawMQ4+NcydIxhI1fE9iu dMK/6MRPiDlNvAdepvI/AMXAIcSP7JpaGn/zOB3qZ+aguf83N+zZOGCH9haIN/MzuKEyxO LSJj1XYSMb0Hd0K/hDvSmB8rKzn8iM3/wlzNy7VwoJfkZeapYhhW6bFyyY5icA== 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 068B126B96 for ; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:06:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVD1p-0007fT-Ta; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:06:05 -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 1tVD1m-0007fF-So for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:06:03 -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 1tVD1m-0008WP-4H for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:06:02 -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=3XU2BBF9J14mrAcboFvPNqKbGp4Leto0nMG2vvRf+Co=; b=nmVFqfT6mQOIyIhjlodH86sHII7ADKWpCTRbmkaCUCj3XoG3qyfYZqzpE9CEHDZnE0be106dGEg9BwgHaGX70QjuddnC7hMWgZD/1GeX7Y0NHTl9GupmKwvh4SIs4RExuWp+NkgUhJ+IHR9OFXnHQ7/rn2JF7+Dr7PETt8P7UcxXjwUvvfzc0nKbGdyAhHRKZ0rLH8IuSGmpeWahrMd+Kwze98AYfDuM2f8bPkF5lm5L5XO1hvQ4IBElnVKljM+OBz8rpmbApemnFCySgNZGw4e38PfyzvhG81qFHcpOY3tYONKg/ujKInTHH/QCyE3DBQl3o+qF01D92OeUkP+Zgw==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVD1l-0001oo-UH for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:06:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process. Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 17:06:01 +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: Christopher Baines , Simon Tournier Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.17362695506973 (code B ref 74736); Tue, 07 Jan 2025 17:06:01 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jan 2025 17:05:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44433 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVD1Z-0001oN-1M for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:05:49 -0500 Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([2a01:5b40:0:3006::1]:38962) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVD1W-0001o9-C1 for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 12:05:48 -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=3XU2BBF9J14mrAcboFvPNqKbGp4Leto0nMG2vvRf+Co=; b=M BDeKyp+lQqh19dTLcXg9Y2PZ6UtH+2UFIp9Tfn5kxnJbrwuIERXmHeHFGIrzQ6oWLVp78z0J7fFqS 2EtcTht7MN2B5dNEAx7Tn9g3FjRdkna5M5s4QPa6V0kbaT3VA5zcu8Heg4yN5gSNMX4dJ3dvZ2mrT K2xlxC2hzRPFlltoIxG6jw22W+YtKqbEtSUlTW84fvIMLVE5g3vHew0qwLlWHnOaY/WC216LbuZuH +BZQIZN986Ih9brCZkVeiMiDEkSon8xE2n+tSl+N+6K5mnJe0UAzwsVh0BIeW1pUYOSUom+BSuytf t0N1nAGG52vstYfLuU4MHkqCXjFHV2u3g==; Received: from smtp by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) id 1tVD1Q-002ovm-8E; Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:05:40 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2025 18:06:45 +0100 Message-ID: <87h66aime2.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: -1.88 X-Spam-Score: -1.88 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 068B126B96 X-TUID: Mcv4sevrso9x Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > Hello, > > As proposed before, here=E2=80=99s a reworked version based on v5. The i= ntent > is to keep the spirit and process unchanged compared to v5, while making > the document a bit more concise (239 lines, v5 was 322), improving > consistency for key words, hopefully improving wording, fixing > grammatical issues, and adding Markdown ornaments where appropriate. > > Notable changes: > > =E2=80=A2 Instead of =E2=80=9Csupporter=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cco-suppor= ter=E2=80=9D, I propose =E2=80=9Cauthor(s)=E2=80=9D and > =E2=80=9Csupporter(s)=E2=80=9D (there must be at least one supporter). > > =E2=80=A2 Explicitly state the license of RFCs (CC-BY-SA or GFDL). > > =E2=80=A2 Clarify that the deliberation period lasts exactly 14 days (w= as =E2=80=9Cup > to 14 days=E2=80=9D in one place, =E2=80=9C14 days=E2=80=9D in anothe= r). > > =E2=80=A2 Consistently name the different periods. > > =E2=80=A2 Remove mention of the =E2=80=98withdrawn/=E2=80=99 directory:= it=E2=80=99s redundant with > the =E2=80=98status=E2=80=99 header. > > =E2=80=A2 Clarify what to do with =E2=80=9Cdeprecated=E2=80=9D RFCs. > > =E2=80=A2 Clarify headers of this RFC. > > =E2=80=A2 Clarify that this is not just for technical changes. >=20=20=20 > I can proofread and possibly propose minor tweaks the template > afterwards. > > Thoughts? > > Ludo=E2=80=99. This is great, thanks! A few comments below: > > title: Requests-for-Comment Process > id: 000 001, since the template takes id 0000 for ease of access. > status: submitted > discussion: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736 > authors: Simon Tournier, No=C3=A9 Lopez, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s > supporters: ? > submitted: 2024-12-12 > date: 2025-01-15 It=E2=80=99s a good place to add: SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 OR GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-only > --- > > # Summary > > This document describes the _request for comments_ (RFC) process of the > Guix project. The RFC process is intended to provide a consistent and > structured way to propose, discuss, and decide on major changes > affecting the project. It aims to draw attention of community members > on important decisions, technical or not, and to give them a chance to > weigh in. > > # Motivation > > Day-to-day work on Guix revolves around informal interactions, peer > review, and consensus-based decision making. As the community grows, so > does the stream of proposed changes, and no single person is able to > keep track of all of them. > > The RFC process is a mechanism to determine whether a proposed change is > =E2=80=9Csignificant=E2=80=9D enough to require attention from the commun= ity at large > and if so, to provide a documented way to bring about broad community > discussion and to collectively decide on the proposal. > > A change may be deemed =E2=80=9Csignificant=E2=80=9D when it could only b= e reverted at a > high cost or, for technical changes, when it has the potential to > disrupt user scripts and programs or user workflows. Examples include: > > =E2=80=93 changing the `` record type and/or its interfaces; > - adding or removing a `guix` sub-command; > - changing the channel mechanism; > - changing project governance policy such as teams, decision making, the > deprecation policy, or this very document; > - changing the contributor workflow and related infrastructure (mailing > lists, source code repository and forge, continuous integration, etc.) Missing a dot at the end of the sentence. > # Detailed Design > > ## When to Follow This Process > > The RFC process applies only to =E2=80=9Csignificant=E2=80=9D changes, wh= ich include: > > - changes that modify user-facing interfaces that may be relied on > (command-line interfaces, core Scheme interfaces); > - big restructuring of packages; > - hard to revert changes; > - significant project infrastructure or workflow changes; > - governance or changes to the way we collaborate. > > Someone submitting a patch for any such change may be asked to submit an > RFC first. > > Most day-to-day contributions do *not* require an RFC; examples include: > > - adding or updating packages, removing outdated packages; > - fixing security issues and bugs in a way that does not change > interfaces; > - updating the manual, updating translations; > - changing the configuration of systems part of project infrastructure > in a user-invisible way. > > These day-to-day contributions remain governed by the process described > by the manual in its =E2=80=9CContributing=E2=80=9D chapter. > > ## How the Process Works > > 1. Clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix/requests-for-comments.git . Why the alone dot? > 2. Copy `0000-template.md` to `00XY-short-name.md` where `short-name` > is a short descriptive name long and `XY` is the sequence number. > 3. Write your RFC following the template=E2=80=99s structure. The RFC mu= st not > be prospective; it must formalize an idea and sketch a plan to > implement it, even if not all details are known. If it intends to > deprecate a previously-accepted RFC, it must explicitly say so. > 4. Submit the RFC as a patch to `guix-patches@gnu.org`. > 5. Announce your RFC at `guix-devel@gnu.org` and look for *supporters*: > one or more people who will support the RFC and participate in > discussions by your side (see below). > > The RFC is *submitted* once it has at least one supporter in addition to > the author(s). > So we are now three authors and no supporters for this RFC? Could we say that more than one author also works for submitting? > ## Supporters > > A supporter is a contributor sufficiently familiar with the project=E2=80= =99s > practices, hence it is recommended, but not mandatory, to be a team > member. Supporters do not have to agree with all the points of the RFC > but should generally be satisfied that the proposed additions are a good > thing for the community. > > Supporters help the author(s) by participating in discussions, amending > the document as it is being discussed, and acting as timekeepers. > > ## Timeline > > The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended > periods: > > ![diagram.svg](Diagram of the RFC process.) > > ```dot <- TODO: make this a separate file > digraph "RFC Timeline" { > submission[label=3Dup to 7=C2=A0days>] > comments[label=3D30=E2=80=9360=C2=A0days>] > deliberation[label=3D14=C2=A0days>] > withdrawn[label=3DWithdrawn, shape=3Drectangle] > final[label=3DFinal, shape=3Drectangle] >=20=20=20=20=20 > submission -> comments > submission -> withdrawn > comments -> deliberation > deliberation -> withdrawn > deliberation -> final >=20=20=20=20=20 > withdrawn -> submission [label=3D"New version"] >=20=20=20=20=20 > comments -> withdrawn > } > ``` > > The subsections below detail the various stages and their duration. > > ### Submission Period (up to 7 days) > > Anyone can author and submit an RFC as a regular patch and look for > supporters (see below). The RFC is *submitted* once it has one or more > supporters; the next step is the *discussion period*. > > Author(s) may withdraw their RFC at any time; they can resubmit it again > later, possibly under a new RFC number. > > ### Discussion Period (at least 30 days, up to 60 days) > > Once submitted, the RFC is publicly discussed; authors are encouraged to > publish updated versions incorporating feedback during the discussion. > > Once the discussion settles, at the latest after 60 days, the author(s) > publish a final version, leading to the *deliberation period*. > > ### 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); This parenthesis is alone. > - =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*. > > Deliberation aims at consolidating consensus; see =E2=80=9CDecision Makin= g=E2=80=9D > below. > > RFC acceptance is not a rubber stamp; in particular, it does not mean > the proposal will effectively be implemented, but it does mean that all > the participants consent to its implementation. > > Similarly, withdrawal does not necessarily equate with rejection; it > could mean that more discussion and thought is needed before ideas in > the RFC are accepted by the community. > > ## Decision Making > > Contributors and even more so team members are expected to help build > consensus. By using consensus, we are committed to finding solutions > that everyone can live with. > > Thus, no decision is made against significant concerns; these concerns > are actively resolved through counter proposals. A deliberating member > disapproving a proposal bears a responsibility for finding alternatives, > proposing ideas or code, or explaining the rationale for the status quo. > > To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer > details, you are encouraged to read > https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus . Another alone dot =F0=9F=A4=94 > > ## Merging Final RFCs > > Whether it is accepted or withdrawn, a committer merges the final RFC > following these steps: > > 1. filling in the remaining metadata in the RFC headers (changing the > `status` to `accepted` or `withdrawn`; adding the URL of the > discussion in the `discussion` header; updating the `date` header; if > previously-accepted RFCs are deprecated by this new RFC, change the > `status` header accordingly); > 2. committing everything; > 3. announcing the publication of the RFC. > > All the RFCs are dual-licensed under the [Creative Commons > Attribution-ShareAlike > 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) license and the > [GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, with no Invariant Sections, no > Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover > Texts](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html). I would add =E2=80=9Cor (at your option) any later version.=E2=80=9D > > ## RFC Template > > The expected structure of RFCs is captured by the template in the file > `0000-template.md`, written in English with Markdown ornaments. Ornament is a complicated word, I would replace it with =E2=80=9Csyntax=E2= =80=9D. > > ## Cost of Reverting > > The RFC process described in this documented can be amended by > subsequent RFCs. > > ## Drawbacks > > There is a risk that the additional process will hinder contribution more= than > it would help. We should stay alert that the process is only a way to he= lp > contribution, not an end in itself. > > Discussions could easily have a low signal-to-noise ratio. We will > collectively pay attention to over- and under-representation of voices > and notably avoid repeating arguments, avoid using exclusionary jargon, > and solicit opinions of those who remained silent. > > ## Open Issues > > There are still questions regarding the desired scope of the process. > While we want to ensure that technical changes that affect users are > well-considered, we certainly don=E2=80=99t want the process to become un= duly > burdensome. This is a careful balance which will require care to > maintain moving forward. Thanks for the v6, apart from my comments I think its great and ready to be submitted :) In my opinion there are too many unnecessary emphasis (mostly with `), but I will live with it. Have a nice day, No=C3=A9