From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org> Received: from mp0.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 yKDhD5FiXWc+qgAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from <guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>) for <larch@yhetil.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:48:49 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id yKDhD5FiXWc+qgAAqHPOHw (envelope-from <guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>) for <larch@yhetil.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 11:48:49 +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=I7PKLeg0; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=nLGym1jr; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1734173329; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=ZnbUQW5cQINOVXG8ntHvv9RmN0eIUFU2ekOcVbVzsdKrh8eJfd3pbzUI/HtQNV4p9F4fGK vh+r0we3mergvM8IcYApV6cEAlbOzZ+De4e98RnYRZ0l78zmXvCgVnON/+bkNc9TczCv8T T2GI9oosvFLNlddXTfaYoAXRQNuQQG1hCkCwNairtlbOarIPVby+LjLsz/OXFdglsdbw/U KTJ1Lp8a+MpkD4fzg+JRM4ERR6mnoafMdCChcLK6WPa6Z4GgMXWHdo0MccxAa7tOH11IHy 99/n7P+hSNZC/7pJ+l9fEaUwFjfP4ntrC7mwksBCz0zbc/nMkUlZjYvnIlJ7WA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=I7PKLeg0; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=nLGym1jr; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gnu.org; 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" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1734173329; 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: 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=79hXUh1B/ZE2cQAsAxdwbHrbE/hUF8mOMCLBynUYE/c=; b=CpPwG8dEjyRizP52oOp3Bc1BL6+JDfaoUYh5l40eJTxExGKy/JkIEnFAlUPjsU4owDQ4Bi LFs12Tc76qMf1eEfOn5XxzdOWBSDr4WlHTvnyO3oJBJYSiZqVTpHOujdXkGZW1A8VYVbI7 nT2ZW0izpm2pn07mzZj5gyTxdMfuhWmbmglGeKTWqUrA8T27jg3lXGQ2LulLR0yfUcPKJe ZAGDs+6Ag52z7KAUQOo6mrMBrpHU7klizsO/9D9GpYGxmI937edUtBevrjs8KOZIXubNwy 4hiaefmhZOoFz0PL/SxKscM/W1oY3oPendVU+D701xbo8H8QeNi1nqGJyEmDyg== 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 03003893CE for <larch@yhetil.org>; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 11:48:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org>) id 1tMPgp-0006G0-4T; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:48:03 -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 <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1tMPgo-0006Fo-5H for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:48:02 -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 <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1tMPgn-0005EL-SZ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:48:01 -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=79hXUh1B/ZE2cQAsAxdwbHrbE/hUF8mOMCLBynUYE/c=; b=I7PKLeg0AQjgluKJM0wqh52mFpaeYD+kmPdzCDEJCwZ0FDvq9ALOwXZ/bNZnvfpF6Bgd24ApWBFsxanzEVgqtS6tfb+9CwEsmcVWQBaoq4M8iSEFfCDUkAXetKktY54aHIWflfcaltqdtdVgq54jrs3MAKEP8QuxwEy6SdYDfFuR8WkrP4fvDBdYLOZ7WS0tGT4Ze8RydBTlT2BIMbCb20upON4lGUNd1uynu2y1Z+FqrrnHCxltASrodIGsydvRITuvmBJe+yNUQ70Ou8QExHpe+BYMwrRFhBrUhsnzTD8vTndlEeYjSNqoGE25tdbi/XMn7/MMmFFTz/Rk6xVzEQ==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1tMPgn-0001vv-MO for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:48:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v3] rfc: Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:48:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.74736.B74736.17341732527382@debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 74736 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>, =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez <noelopez@free.fr>, 74736@debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail@cbanes.net> Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.17341732527382 (code B ref 74736); Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:48:01 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Dec 2024 10:47:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45673 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1tMPgK-0001ux-02 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:47:32 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46864) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1tMPgH-0001ue-92 for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:47:30 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1tMPgA-00059y-CT; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:47:22 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=79hXUh1B/ZE2cQAsAxdwbHrbE/hUF8mOMCLBynUYE/c=; b=nLGym1jrEM/WDv1pPCsX 8HK5X2WjhrkwuM2LDTHumNfTcL+WOEqkyg7aSJSO6CU5pv07qQxwnNb3n8IylEbvhIjlE76YxBuWK eYbUSK4VXpm6qV2wYiCVZ3JSc3NOkCLUDTvTqNirHUUsv3lZxcMQJatMzIDOoCQ2RJUvqrawy5U/g OBjcNQZ8czNiPMUAaRrdjAloz9Lv3FSU3r9g2DU5/jnC/bQPJl1T1bVMz/HHY8jpJ9kbD6BZ1g42G 4s/2l0gq5Er3hQ9tgJPbfcEAAWNRZp0Wir/smCVsL9oWf8ndfvlzZ0Zw/UtJk+bhvmlcCkCc9biQF d9aUZTsytkHz3A==; From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <493bcc076f206ec134959268f55a9358b4886b88.1734031781.git.zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> (Simon Tournier's message of "Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:30:56 +0100") References: <cover.1733614983.git.noelopez@free.fr> <493bcc076f206ec134959268f55a9358b4886b88.1734031781.git.zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 11:47:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87h676mthk.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) 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: <guix-patches.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>, <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches> List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>, <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=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-Spam-Score: -0.07 X-Spam-Score: -0.07 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 03003893CE X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-TUID: BAMEBPvhffEP Thanks for v3! Some of my more superficial comments earlier this week remain unaddressed: =E2=80=A2 I think it should be Markdown, and in a separate repo. =E2=80=A2 There are too many explicit references to Debbugs, which I thin= k is not future-proof. I think the text itself needs more work to address and remove remaining comments that appear in the body, to improve grammar and wording, and to make it shorter (it=E2=80=99s way too long IMO). But that can come in a se= cond phase. Questions/comments about the process that I overlooked before: > +The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended peri= ods: > + > + submission (7d) =E2=9F=B6 comments (30=E2=80=9360d) =E2=9F=B6 last cal= l (14d) =E2=9F=B6 withdrawn OR final This diagram doesn=E2=80=99t show everything I think; for example=E2=80=A6 > +*** Submission (up to 7 days) > + > +The author submits their RFC proposal as a regular patch and look for > +co-supporter(s). See 'Co-supporter' section. > + > +Once the RFC is co-supported, it marks the start of a discussion period. =E2=80=A6 what happens when the submitter doesn=E2=80=99t find supporters i= n that period? I=E2=80=99m guessing the RFC goes in =E2=80=9Cwithdrawn=E2=80=9D st= ate? The diagram should reflect that, and we can render it with Dot. > +*** 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 > + - =3D0 / LGTM: I will live with it > + - -1: I disagree with this proposal > + > +At least half of people with commit acces must express their voice with = the > +keys above during this last call. We need to be sure that the RFC had b= een > +read by people committed to take care of the project, since it proposes = an > +important change. 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. I propose this definition: anyone who is on a team (in =E2=80=98teams.scm= =E2=80=99) is a voting member*. We can keep a quorum, but I think 50% of the voters is too ambitious; maybe 25%? This would become=C2=B9: 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. Thoughts? Ludo=E2=80=99. * We=E2=80=99ll have to create new teams and update them so we don=E2=80=99= t forget anyone, notably translators, sysadmins, graphics designers, and so on. =C2=B9 Inspired by <https://codeberg.org/mergiraf/mergiraf/src/branch/main/GOVERNANCE.md>.