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>.