From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id OLbsKQw+bWdYTwAAe85BDQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:29:16 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2.migadu.com with LMTPS id OLbsKQw+bWdYTwAAe85BDQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 12:29:16 +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=HGf0Lo5Q; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=K4lEnfCy; 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=1735212556; 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=6eQfLkNBgiXAE0qky7Udoz1j3MIHuPTchz5Gt3dOa8s=; b=pSJa7E0E7QsYcwxh+r9fmccidzW+ZbQ/2ggg4ENJmz2+/sb9CSOSnnrAiMDRbLW4r2dK7D zXHBPg/MoH5DGzLaaJBFBc43sIu3UZgzIJYPV5wGpdqyWQSiN98WVKHATb87VUltDJiU3U lu+1fs3N0wyQNG3qiVY4gH4oD+bei9z+xzTSpFX4Bg0dhGWBCJ/CtlZoydulk5g9tEfK7D ZWUQyugQuOJIT64FabnNcSTPbJcSjkTyV+E0MWKnHVatDzjVASG8/zIw5cRngQHRDPx8zw P+FBWeOExWd9Ebj34QkA/nHNuv5VsJOKLVxkEdDO12w6GtWpgyQOXGMg9HHZeA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=HGf0Lo5Q; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=K4lEnfCy; 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=1735212556; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=BFhZNRcUmyzgFSbWUr0qq2QAIW/ruVrQLu+Ilodh5wy/Wl8+P8+o/dOsrYMlN4LyjsEr7E /ttvkQvsL3mTjCBiKLDIyp8dUf8+euCEq1NSzFi1PnUrnmxN79WkLPgRpPy0SLGqiwLoDn v8G/W4OWTds8TiJase5QwjUdhGsraAYxG3nFu3rD0SQwu+vOTEcdASep8XaAloPy5BQQc3 VDDOjke79TQibUNl6aG9Ghl6c1ocMGPupMpnHMp0cWKKD1ieTf2R1QBYnshpkWlPpl40e9 iybTiBfnggCG1EcIUdjrOV4lgsCYNdgY32xUSg3gAubigW+KGBF29XLMdc1GcA== 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 1CEC51A40C for ; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 12:29:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQm37-0007j7-Ex; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:29:05 -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 1tQm34-0007ij-Oq for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:29:02 -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 ) id 1tQm34-0004mw-GT for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:29:02 -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=6eQfLkNBgiXAE0qky7Udoz1j3MIHuPTchz5Gt3dOa8s=; b=HGf0Lo5Q3iFeSQ/WvqAJeWksXueIMpIEi9K1dCm7yowP7zIW7fexbgDdqsS+zuZUmq0RP5NlA3WbDvsl1Aly2/FuhhM93BupBXyA9hBjiTvz8r/9DKNOP77AszjkR1nuNPYq33RIVtYBa6Wqc/eBKv23ue2XrlHEJ9yosEaw0o4P83GD8bJLbAQIvNmUV2tXQuXLUCoGp93aQ366RuR6QhuI9W+znhdCNqmGYphORDlcOOYo6yz62GnsGQykpWXAeeYLn3NyFRBIr4aKxC+sIA6bibyK6/QQ+1pjGcJ+kbm5PAve+4WUmr0dzwMTWj6iuSxalB/5LoMfwLl/CQWv4Q==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tQm34-0000U9-B6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:29:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:29:02 +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: Simon Tournier Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.17352125261845 (code B ref 74736); Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:29:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Dec 2024 11:28:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40285 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tQm2n-0000Tg-NB for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:28:46 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51740) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tQm2l-0000TS-IL for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:28:44 -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 ) id 1tQm2f-0004jP-Mn; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 06:28:37 -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=6eQfLkNBgiXAE0qky7Udoz1j3MIHuPTchz5Gt3dOa8s=; b=K4lEnfCy+vJrADLyKA8+ 9+cKvpJpC/U8Bq+ScYatrJp+RMl+akrQlYcFZ4Kyb0u4eyhudMWmEiKGMmn9H382fbws9yEAM/m+b Tb7dLo2aQHDalCugDBHJ25fNCBiYaHjXujZgeEL99CcEsFfLEDWPKCWjtn3qHveUrk4PIs3ZzE3RD /TCh3LdFOGfYY9QgtRGiowXIpq/KXdmx1S6hbZ8XxU77euu62jIQtrkqZclEgMp+poLsW6GI841kA laiLB0dcJwN65ReTW1ArPya01dpORE9O1+ANteOc+lincC9c9qsZKkURFZGLc7r9aHoifnQwIU/nC MOzvAKy+RxsIzQ==; From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= In-Reply-To: <877c7qe243.fsf_-_@gmail.com> (Simon Tournier's message of "Mon, 23 Dec 2024 18:33:00 +0100") References: <87ikraea0f.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <877c7qe243.fsf_-_@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Sextidi 6 =?UTF-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 233 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution,?= jour de la Lave X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 12:28:34 +0100 Message-ID: <87ttaqwun1.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: 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-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Spam-Score: -6.91 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 1CEC51A40C X-Migadu-Scanner: mx10.migadu.com X-TUID: dcniAouPzkMu Hi, Simon Tournier skribis: >>> +### 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 access must express their voice wi= th >>> +the keys above during this last call. We need to be sure that the RFC >>> +had been read by people committed to take care of the project, since it >>> +proposes an important change. >>> + >>> +When a positive consensus is reached, the RFC becomes effective. If no= t, >>> +the proposal is archived and the status quo continues. >> >> It seems unchanged compared to v3. WDYT of my comments, suggestions, >> and proposed wording: >> >> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#9 >> >> ? > > Quoting: > > > I think committers here are mentioned as a simple way to express > > membership and avoid infiltration, but it has the downside of i= gnoring > > many members and giving committers a special privilege. > > It=E2=80=99s not about infiltration, it=E2=80=99s about to be sure that p= eople agree and > do not overlook. Right. (Though I think infiltration is also a valid concern.) > > I propose this definition: anyone who is on a team (in =E2=80= =98teams.scm=E2=80=99) is a > > voting member*. > > I agree. > > > We can keep a quorum, but I think 50% of the voters is too ambi= tious; > > maybe 25%? > > Well, I picked 50% almost randomly. ;-) Somehow, I do not have a strong > opinion. My concern is only to be sure that we have a consensus and not > something falling between the cracks. Yes, agreed. > > This would become=C2=B9: > > > > Once the final version is published, team members have 14 day= s 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 cas= es, the > > RFC is withdrawn. > > For me, if we have only one minus, it means we do not have consensus. > Therefore, the person who cannot live with the proposal must be > proactive in finding a solution that we all agree on. Yes. > 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 proposal= is not > overlooked. I=E2=80=99m all for consensus-based decision making, as you know. My conce= rn 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 cases,= but if we can use vote as a tool to avoid it, it=E2=80=99s worth considering. WDYT? Ludo=E2=80=99.