From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 mGI6EWUNdGdclgAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:27:33 +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 mGI6EWUNdGdclgAAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 16:27:33 +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=IhxV4wLb; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=mWF96Sqj; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1735658853; 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=baBulgzTCfFNuITvWzkLJi09MmLYJ2zCk42+rt2OV/Q=; b=CnXajGg+T7g+kbq19wkbXUYkvH0hPvrxMkOhOdthZ0kagqB2rl/mjZjzg1wCU0jnEKDYj4 Ydvc/XuGC/s5Kj8WBc5AcRkPSZ9mZvQC2We4fPoEqKyCyw2h8IzqvcFLsT4niVnnL2vlXl n9Rb/HqYlXGSkDJ7Hee1OMEY399Xl5TPNGWSWyocarzJUUZgekSUIPDxMjm61yGJBt6Xrd QCo+Ob16SBRnyhh7v8zbVmL6C/EW9Qzx43A+7x/NctMyTU7Hi2NsfRhPjBCrqzMMtsDo+U y6JRFFx+NJWHRhUCC+sMcIr+0GZpBUK9DgtUNJO8I9B+Vij1xu9epbmYhkbvqg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=IhxV4wLb; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=mWF96Sqj; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1735658853; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=NDc0BB6xBPFZiktf49P1Lpf67mbbBOKENP7P9+Qtm/cr5bLZ04jThVymcMOcMWyF4LY6mf NE8wbf8cl3qOW8CRmRSMseDaDHfMN0UsuYWtbxDohoOiO0tMmhW07YgAGn+JkGq9DB/7+L U7ya7G0jEuQqyOHLfM3VoZRY26nHQ06yWeG20835c41ALwA/aQ3+MT4ygJBQj1EjZmyl7E IG5hVHDvI32S/9HTeN7bQuf2IKO2jv3wCiqkmfAjCeRAw01UampMgtiSajDPbILAzCSNBx rMDCD5vaHy4eTYjrErp1+CaMHjxUqbfC1+uCzMr/p/MUwNsgMCZ7IR0i+NQxgw== 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 E131036503 for ; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 16:27:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSe9F-0005u3-1A; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:27:09 -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 1tSe99-0005te-NT for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:27:04 -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 1tSe99-0004z6-FJ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:27:03 -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=baBulgzTCfFNuITvWzkLJi09MmLYJ2zCk42+rt2OV/Q=; b=IhxV4wLbOacYougC34hRaGnlb0nZObtDW7OrtBWF/loCUn2vPgAQntT5c9tbytXn0fIJlqGLgIwQjnEmlhpEmReZ06kYgwFVHoModgeQ5YbRgxqwLWqUMcSlbGrP9wMuY63GkWoX9mOFOpFAeYVEcDnWN4jmh6Tux8NduCbV8+GPReXIZO9m5E/gG28Irwccgck2SBxHsVM2ojeAfZz+WPbLgH58nFGojc7zjEFMM9IW/bqIws7DJjqqrq8/4nC86PkvO024sv39BQUkvs3UwFr8fM/0Ks2otrp57dVuADg5/brsXta75jvDZhP864vcjyY+9csFOqlj0RR5ZEaQtQ==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSe98-0001DE-AR for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:27:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: Simon Tournier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:27:02 +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?= Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.17356588144641 (code B ref 74736); Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:27:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 31 Dec 2024 15:26:54 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36513 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSe90-0001Cm-2r for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:26:54 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f42.google.com ([209.85.128.42]:44359) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSe8x-0001Ca-BQ for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 10:26:52 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43618283d48so73771695e9.1 for <74736@debbugs.gnu.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:26:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1735658751; x=1736263551; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=baBulgzTCfFNuITvWzkLJi09MmLYJ2zCk42+rt2OV/Q=; b=mWF96SqjMm4cQC60mLQ5xrcAG9RJ6DF70i6uwNqp/KMT9pWd1CilrNso+o3g5lzmqf MYjyeSTUd5BbX8pX0Eqolgedesp1VXdx7ggwuplK8K3eU6juc6wiOfv8FX6I4JfnF0vt N70eAFysogTazqlhbKGWPPMtChrNrOOtHMGL31zEppGFhcBlWZ9G7kMettrRG4FhxxuG PonWKtcvEwfXS4RdJypgxm4XiGlJbgCizW7BejT6wJuZXbgO0amf1YmNOUKzH85bW6ys DveJ4TnwE7NwdsNQR1Ol6Fmf2/A5ZoZiU3RfL6aVrtlbgxcWfQVcm1aGcyWFKSOQjq1D juug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1735658751; x=1736263551; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=baBulgzTCfFNuITvWzkLJi09MmLYJ2zCk42+rt2OV/Q=; b=KOwvy4O2n+f1jO8PxSAMKa5ombOK1fKI1fdroBxWdCK/UpVH4JmNMgNFGFYrlcsXnL l2kEUinl9CiMHwWiJ0KLW3NXjkoL9x5X69SQXHPDpMfjFAon9ihm4z7Yfk/91GX4U1bn kNY5nzTRwnRmlZyZFq2jBUOouK1bbPtNMKb8ge/9nS5p4gwg0L11B/fRTFLX2Q/j3oaD uY7aadyZTzYsuvrh5Ql7axdLsalhHg6y6Fe7NqYkJ6J8RNq6vish8BOQ4KJyaqUWecBd w3F38jSHKp6XJqVjtG6xqJoI7avPppJJZqkMcnWIAzMR38vxV/rrvvdUbDgMycvBGIMv 3P0A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWH8mtoq8ZVZaGc+938XegdPElBQNqkQZbE0uswyZI1RIGqx0FaLMMWklTu7zu0HnCnApq9og==@debbugs.gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwRpaoPqh5NoWr6DurC06os2g8ezwMd7k/j3n3P/e8Ej4P+g+9a 3Z+XrL4vjDHoVN5oFFPtai0zcWHQYbC/HhFLFKtTKYsFKVUvHHyLVcIc8A== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs6gZC1as4LDka8BegYrP8LYQrpf/7U0/sdUAspPHiMunyB3wdWfBdE1M6Vxsf fP0IrcGZmOMl2wHB3PQTExvg/T0HxImr+jPZxPAleUq8lQdXNPtei/DDsHe+NaQGc5WEoAoY4H6 eQlkJClQTXcHoQv1ShSvrjDl0xyma7ZnYT4iItIcFXNdT7i9kejsRLfO/AhKJIhTN4VslkvqMIM zMNrqKjz6htAg0C2jQoK3Cissqoj6WRAwLPdbhVDuNykujktLX7Ix2FHlzCC7kVpjy5J3TSecRB SO/UYl5nnyLlp9TwcApGx3XLGrS6rXLeZKdrtmFDJA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEKh6FweUzFBhzQEx0Hvs2Pnh2ksBe0V6jGQnxSC5AnZ85ghI0FlxiUFWdIknzsKeNx+jpy5Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1d03:b0:434:a529:3b87 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4366864313dmr415490355e9.10.1735658748782; Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili (roam-nat-fw-prg-194-254-61-41.net.univ-paris-diderot.fr. [194.254.61.41]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4366127c508sm391234405e9.33.2024.12.31.07.25.47 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:25:48 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Tournier In-Reply-To: <87ttaqwun1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87ikraea0f.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <877c7qe243.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87ttaqwun1.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 16:23:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87ldvvzxiu.fsf@gmail.com> 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: , 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: 0.64 X-Spam-Score: 0.64 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: E131036503 X-TUID: EbgeyQImde6P Hi Ludo, On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 at 12:28, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> 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 =E2=80=9CReject=E2=80=9D and I prefer =E2=80= =9CDisagree=E2=80=9D or even >> better =E2=80=9CI cannot live with it=E2=80=9D. > > I like the spirit of it, and I would propose exactly that if people were > to meet physically at a meeting. > > The problem I see here is that we=E2=80=99re online, all communication is > asynchronous, sometimes concise, sometimes verbose, sometimes frequent, > sometimes rare, participants may be friends or strangers, and yet we > need to come to a clear shared understanding of whether the RFC is > =E2=80=9Caccepted=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cwithdrawn=E2=80=9D. > > If we keep it too fuzzy, I fear we might be unable to decide what to do. > >>> 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 =E2=80=9Cvote= =E2=80=9D >> because we are trying to work using consensus. When I proposed +1/0/-1 >> my aim was not to =E2=80=9Cvote=E2=80=9C but to be sure that the proposa= l is not >> overlooked. > > I=E2=80=99m all for consensus-based decision making, as you know. My con= cern is > making sure a clear and unambiguous decision is made at the end of the > RFC period. > > The risk I see is that of the final withdrawn/accepted decision to be > perceived as an arbitrary choice by the people in power (RFC editors, > long-timers, etc.), or that of being unable to make that final decision. > It=E2=80=99s a risk that perhaps exists only in the most contentious case= s, but > if we can use vote as a tool to avoid it, it=E2=80=99s worth considering. As you wrote in [1], I think we have the same concern but we have a different idea behind the same =E2=80=9Cvoting=E2=80=9D word. Instead I ag= ree, it=E2=80=99s a deliberation period to be sure that the consensus reaches the quorum (e.g., 25% of the all team members). Somehow, +1/0/-1 seems another way to express the exact same idea for the approval statuses (e.g., see Wayland [2]): + ACK, or =E2=80=9Cacknowledged=E2=80=9D, meaning that the member supports in principle + NOPP, or =E2=80=9Cno opposition=E2=80=9D, meaning that the member is not opposed in principle + NACK, or =E2=80=9Cnegative acknowledgement=E2=80=9D meaning that the member is opposed in principle. which reads: - Support +1 ACK Awesome! - I can with with it 0 NOPP LGTM - I cannot live with it -1 NACK WDYT about=E2=80=A6 The last column is how we are collaborating over all the mailing lists since years.=20 Again, if someone wants to =E2=80=9Cblock=E2=80=9C the RFC, then the blocke= r must be active in proposing an alternative and/or explain with details why the status quo is preferable. In the other words, I disagree to add numbers: how many =E2=80=99Support=E2= =80=99 against =E2=80=98I cannot live with it=E2=80=99? 1 =E2=80=99Support=E2=80=99 vs 2 = =E2=80=99I cannot live with it=E2=80=99? Why not 1 vs 3? Or more? Or less? However, I agree that consensus might scale poorly and might outcome some blocked situations. That=E2=80=99s why =E2=80=98Decision making: cons= ensus=E2=80=99 must be included in the process itself and carefully worded. :-) For these potential blocked situations, the last word is about maintainers. Well, a =E2=80=9Cpositive consensus is reached=E2=80=9D if after the =E2=80= =9CDeliberation Period=E2=80=9C, we have 25% of all the members of all the teams expressing either =E2=80=99Support=E2=80=99 or either =E2=80=99I can live with it=E2= =80=99. If after this period, we have only one =E2=80=99I cannot live with it=E2=80=99, then the RFC is = =E2=80=99dismissed=E2=80=99. Please note that =E2=80=99I cannot live with it=E2=80=99 implies an active = friendly discussion before the end of the =E2=80=9CDeliberation Period=E2=80=9D. In= other words, I cannot sleep and the day before the =E2=80=9CDeliberation Period=E2=80=9D= just raise: Hey, no =E2=80=99I cannot live with it=E2=80=99. WDYT? Well, I will try to clarify the proposal in the coming days in order to remove the =E2=80=9Ctoo fuzzy=E2=80=9D (being active, being blocker, etc.) Cheers, simon 1: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process. Ludovic Court=C3=A8s Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:03:29 +0100 id:87seq5tou6.fsf_-_@gnu.org https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736 https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87seq5tou6.fsf_-_@gnu.org https://yhetil.org/guix/87seq5tou6.fsf_-_@gnu.org 2: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/anongit.freedesktop.org/git/wayl= and/wayland-protocols/+/HEAD/GOVERNANCE.md