From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.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 uAmmFacIgGeXVQEAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:34:31 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:58f0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id uAmmFacIgGeXVQEAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 18:34:31 +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=dkALORyQ; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=We8pYkhn; 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=1736444071; 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=9Cf6ALcaOF0jEacKa7uawRYLIZ/zQTFaxdnyHtZG1r4=; b=oLrh8Jv7iBbC7VkWnB6MGmPXxl64su6Fw5KXfmyaJw+crYe/JDgCoMTD76W1nMfsR566Yu QI5UjctOQ+xsszqpAKhpfGckMcvtv1eIG9IfDxaQs2Z6KUoky/DWTemUsI+PzeJzeXMcPL INM3YmRbaVZuuqK1qD+9h6hQPGMc8GnVumD/oKiVs/vUHH9Ldj2pRUT1mL7ZH2yItdN7I9 tvNc92ZHjY6cCj02jpfHN6tfJkxg/78LlLiyrgtTT8sh8Mj2R46oNJCFubTuGg5sRMYH60 xHQXJsinYbRMW4q7EHhu6wfyRCF5bKWHvmJrKAyAomasVREgkjsUlc4Db1WSoA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=dkALORyQ; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=We8pYkhn; 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=1736444071; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=AjngmrURXvhlTe+5eKhND/6gOuOOk2dQSIzumIoMxct7POz1LMeVtHZe+HOJ5KhM3Tc4gc LPSl3Iyijc2Ls5utmlNHIptOhECQ8Ue+ewad6i6tc8ewuxhq0ntdUttpWVnzjf7H/nn2C7 r6Vy/UFXdThk6W5Mgw5q+RNTExDAVT7mkIXUgrPSA11cZBwCyuWuY/mauo4SGDG4iVe3Mw Mrl0jJ1tFBBB0aEnw2SQJdVzSdUE7K1eOY83+33vS/7xAjPhHGWXDha9pAxg5JuMHmq6Ak jh+bL92wkw7z83Lr9Saj+Ns+wcXJNnO6ERAmfTlL24K5C6itjuj7YxqqmBDCRw== 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 E6971802D5 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 18:34:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwQ2-0004en-IQ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:06 -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 1tVwQ0-0004e9-Fo for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:04 -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 1tVwPz-0003N8-7h for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:04 -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=9Cf6ALcaOF0jEacKa7uawRYLIZ/zQTFaxdnyHtZG1r4=; b=dkALORyQ8XM6FoVDdTFpIrczItw38V35iukfhdeG562CX7Axtwd9R6xehzjR+s2nnpDRTC7vww1y6bJPfvs71HV4PMPmoMhUfh5tUJESNRXyINdda8NvAGsfPid2plZYzjWLW4RKOpjCXZHDnq8sTdl9dvyo4Xz63p8zB9x76FCq6qsliQl1D8qFVu9N60ZQVaZFqIHLD5aOc1IzeN0mkJaUn9IKUe5/2gBg6KjexE0IKnW9gw1qt0jgmVv0OGa/pFtyHBSsAEEUhxJYey/U91d3zBEGSH6nJ19Co6gnjWwAiXupGzrQ9pQ15EYQn5f33cwIoPRELnVSx8+fdnggig==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwPy-0003xa-2d for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process. Resent-From: Simon Tournier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:34:02 +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?= , 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , Christopher Baines Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173644401115162 (code B ref 74736); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:34:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jan 2025 17:33:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54116 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwPS-0003wN-Sv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:33:31 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::434]:56398) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwPQ-0003w3-5B for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:33:29 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-385ef8b64b3so1089614f8f.0 for <74736@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:33:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736444002; x=1737048802; 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=9Cf6ALcaOF0jEacKa7uawRYLIZ/zQTFaxdnyHtZG1r4=; b=We8pYkhnlCMtfuyb/vZFLMm5fCs2UXRlNkpwv3Ak1MPH5CyJ86vY+WHR8QD2EtlFik HA915I8qej9PFHDDBQwJQ3paniWTAdVSuujLlJy6i1vw2zyBmUVHKEN0MMlN78y79dcS mwZ7Qf5rnzRpAFX4yPdu3o87iOldBv8Rvdbw1W6zEj9n0+mDebzTGEhoeTSrC2GRKDab bEy6fm45y9cke6onhpEgw7eiIR7Mca21/scffyQium7MqwL3g3bBWQwvBK2b68/BFA+/ BwPB5TUGXnhfrWP4sw1GCWHnChT0zssTUdHoLPJe9KigwhiWDHtuHmRjJLKBPuthkR8R YWLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736444002; x=1737048802; 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=9Cf6ALcaOF0jEacKa7uawRYLIZ/zQTFaxdnyHtZG1r4=; b=mIZltO7ZGwMldQgZMoCYYA7YO6KhsDwSZyrX+znlWEYZb1kquGnF7Ycbkd8VMswGgA rj5fXW5kawbTpodpvrarnzWqOtT6FlyWbNTUo3EcyBgwDva30c8ArgB3wWEsWRqgorhw h45KSNdzq5QFfBPLbriv8KFLkWWW8RzY/aoPstmZ9w0Berpkn80V9STMScCQs1E3HD1r IzME1Yz7/T9fnCrxhUcfJl5ByHeXILj7FY0ylni8+zJv44EjUsMjAbf98YFW9V8hTxjI w2SlG6L0Ivr7W8gGURfrGneM0QK6ZJT18yBvMQmUxqPF6zifjjxObixoczGoD27Kvj/2 L3wg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXT2kLzTVYCSVa22hTUpQ4eleeg9V6MBlzGNazUQORqfBX3aSLTntZMJVFzGmW+SNptjsAs2Q==@debbugs.gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxgMwqqHwHvoVy+sTOXkmhiPRmvLLpgIhkbNiN6/zXQdCH7Uf1V u6hq+szBux3otzSc9DiUu6XFM35oRmoVu+1xInT8EgOZLnTTTT02 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsioSSzY4XNoqm1WH9GHHF0zj5R/O3NQVgz6kedfqcbVfBP2f5OiFGCXkN5igH hCNBRzQ4NRDl3TTKBnwtah4fCtCA8N6WBue1kLyAGTMciCMefTiGQ67je76TdsxMr/CaJIxC6/B hRPbXlpyIdUYJXI+gqH4NM1c85mh+NNniwlJkMayhsectV2f7XLstOcNZTwXqCLk9AEdRCf6r1b dj9//e4iHh4FnUGXkYVDz2mCZc2AuCsl3y6fvxeaJNw+uuCKL1Uej5jl7SYrm84MdOVOU9hWrLk hM9Pf7VCXI9wKKnbeEX8MWzGlMiZR5dmxu5n6IJrVA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGh3CiSlJzGgheW9cxPHXKUSbzPTz8Q6Ef0PqPrb0AITtQtojwksC/EPCGN/z2RfZBuJW+TqQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:2a3:b0:385:efc7:932d with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-38a8730faafmr6853989f8f.46.1736444001706; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:33:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili (roam-nat-fw-prg-194-254-61-40.net.univ-paris-diderot.fr. [194.254.61.40]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-38a8e4b82ddsm2336023f8f.71.2025.01.09.09.33.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:33:21 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Tournier In-Reply-To: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:21:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87seps3qm8.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: mx11.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.90 X-Spam-Score: -2.90 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: E6971802D5 X-TUID: btqdfo6VG8B5 Hi, On Mon, 06 Jan 2025 at 23:29, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > title: Requests-for-Comment Process > id: 000 I think it=E2=80=99s better to start with 001 and have 000 for the template. > 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 I think the choice of this date is unclear. Do you consider that your reply or mine implies being Supporter? Well, since this document bootstrap the process it=E2=80=99s difficult. :-) Especially when the first draft had been sent on 2023-10-31. I suggest to clarify and to extend: > The RFC is *submitted* once it has at least one supporter in addi= tion to > the author(s). with: The RFC is *submitted* once it has at least one supporter in addition to the author(s). See Submission Period below. > date: 2025-01-15 > --- > > # Summary [...] > # Motivation [...] > # Detailed Design > > ## When to Follow This Process [...] > ## How the Process Works > > 1. Clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix/requests-for-comments.git . > 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. I suggest: `XY` increments 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). See above. > > ## 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. I would add (picked from v5): Please make sure that all have the time and space for expressing their comments. The RFC is about significant changes, thus more opinions is better than less. I think that important to have this written somewhere in the document. And because author is focused on the proposal =E2=80=93 if one took the tim= e to write something, it means one has an idea on some topic that one want to defend :-) =E2=80=93, then it might be difficult to have the right distance. Hence Supporter(s) are also the helper / facilitator here. > ## Timeline > > The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended > periods: > > ![diagram.svg](Diagram of the RFC process.) I would replace the node =E2=80=99comments=E2=80=99 by discussion in order = to have something more homogeneous. Nitpicking? ;-) > ```dot <- TODO: make this a separate file I would prefer to let the dot file here as-is. Because it=E2=80=99s easier= to read in full terminal mode. In addition, yes maybe we could display the graph as an image file. > digraph "RFC Timeline" { > submission[label=3Dup to 7=C2=A0days>] > comments[label=3D30=E2=80=9360=C2=A0days>] discussion[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 discussion -> 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*. As said above, I would clarify: The RFC is *submitted* once one or more people publicly reply =E2=80=9CI support=E2=80=9D and volunteers to= be 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) [...] > ### Deliberation Period (14 days) > > All members of any team of the Guix project can participate in > deliberation and are encouraged to do so. I would restore the past suggestion to mention the file =E2=80=99teams.scm= =E2=80=99; see suggestion below (mark **). > 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); ---^ ) extra > - =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. I do not think the wording of the last sentence is accurate enough: Because maybe there is no alternative solution or the status quo is the one, etc. Instead, I would write: A team member sending this reply must have actively cooperated with for discussing the RFC during the discussion period. See Decision Making. > 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*. Here, I would replace =E2=80=99disagrees=E2=80=99 with =E2=80=99disapproves= =E2=80=99. It appears to me clearer. > Deliberation aims at consolidating consensus; see =E2=80=9CDecision Makin= g=E2=80=9D > below. Here (remember mark ** :-)), I would add this sentence. Anyone who is on a team (see file =E2=80=98teams.scm=E2=80=99) is a= deliberating member and is asked to contribute to the deliberation. > ## Decision Making [...] > ## Merging Final RFCs [...] > > ## RFC Template > > The expected structure of RFCs is captured by the template in the file > `0000-template.md`, written in English with Markdown ornaments. The number of 000 must be in agreement with the top, IMHO. > ## Cost of Reverting [...] > ## Drawbacks [...] > ## Open Issues [...] Cheers, simon