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 yEYOC0cpeGfuaQEAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:15:35 +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 yEYOC0cpeGfuaQEAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 19:15:35 +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=QhBehSUW; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=LDk7Svtz; 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=1735928134; 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=s5sYvgQO7osKiTdrSBPhncy7ukYSUUJwMsQC6tmfdEE=; b=lGZbc42jSzKdHxSiy5pFmZWzpBpt3pFe/TrbRIILQNTKeTNl13IYS4wXqSvOkURcmgWCu+ nfLAQ6Xv/vcRYpHY3insXga4cQKJaXuPJVaEHUElh3V/fTMmOldh9gWWTUUEstppUsEGHe PJSr2VcrIX6lg4VriQb2x5fAepTu42aqgfhQuUtTFK3V2QGrluPs57bN1xU1BhUBwzPiV9 94gx0HCWlTaQY10w0qilBsUxzy8e6ZMbvJqUvo6onMEcCUTKi+eqHtqWYxxbqzKl+pzgit hIQoTJA52cwrIwxNoHce5ldRogpHfacrc5kTncxBYysZMb7Rgc3SrleY3r3wfg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=QhBehSUW; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=LDk7Svtz; 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=1735928134; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=nsJ9ggDo+ybqg5kebGqWt2vLWFEsCUj98IyxiCFY7r9XtOkC9CtiB38CZlzL9GG6lyzXUe TgVgSwEeWwK/lWlgYGZEIltiOLJaPhQMjerUENLwj2izstsPfrAHs4o01H4iz9kDFhr6xD fusFEW+2v86ihUQ0kkY0U2PSo45s7pRNUNI0Vupatb05J4yXjs1Tf/s2cX8Y9qlUyYrO7/ jmCR2ttV7FmgvlojuuTrcVRHXTMs9Ef9X7ZVRVYIoa7nHE82J8YD4jxVT9ZODeslOuVD/E 9kcfTVd8/HQ455ACcUCWXdtEn0ar/SLilfjrdE2YbH8Qcs3TTKqXEw7m0zZSrg== 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 AD3B21A260 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 19:15:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tTmCT-00039h-VN; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:15:10 -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 1tTmCP-00037K-Le for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:15:05 -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 1tTmCP-0006o9-Ar for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:15:05 -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:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject; bh=s5sYvgQO7osKiTdrSBPhncy7ukYSUUJwMsQC6tmfdEE=; b=QhBehSUWTM3Q4oHFeOiZJyoPbXsbV3brBn4x4M/jeDCRwTBfbGUzSFOPo+6rR38ug5UwrHn/8fGJ69JO5Uj1Ga7oxiJ0nOxwKFLpjfKczFxw1IdsYAAyGsjl8Q9I9/zIaLw0DHU/CA49/IKEZ9dh4TQNVhhUSgqE78I0E0SGKMAUXnWyNR9W3D6XUtCsMaW04UfzXYJAcjyoqiPe03t2VeKuOR6PHkLGBaNf8l0FxJaP5uei5PeOhtJfpWQWXCoBWz0mkt/3LVMZLXF8wvPHGgItfZM4jlWDYe1b2KY7iRA6UkZ00HvNoKqNWM9RoCjQMIBrc+ZszLbPtL4jcSMDuw==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tTmCN-00074a-LS for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:15:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v5] rfc: Add Request-For-Comment process. References: In-Reply-To: Resent-From: Simon Tournier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:15:03 +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: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Christopher Baines , Simon Tournier Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173592810027149 (code B ref 74736); Fri, 03 Jan 2025 18:15:03 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Jan 2025 18:15:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51992 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tTmCJ-00073k-93 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:15:00 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::331]:50374) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tTmCF-00073P-Ry for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 13:14:57 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43690d4605dso49732265e9.0 for <74736@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 10:14:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1735928094; x=1736532894; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=s5sYvgQO7osKiTdrSBPhncy7ukYSUUJwMsQC6tmfdEE=; b=LDk7SvtzDCecslZx5hVG5R4K7KXQKOnOJF9BuCG+pzB9V1knFbv3WFHG8GqLGqNYTO LWS6MG9RSooXWU7CayHCBzrlCDdjL/j13YDIRGOgpwX2uy6wYt/P0bdNz4hbcI5gFaEj BH+oDfi341eklAevdEcP1PTBmx0vmz+FwU2Dr4fOLwxiqyztp6RaE77Sd7kkIE4gWIr2 iv6iB1rZx3mbTDmAuloRzUegiRZYX9HGDty/97HgSEcWAnIE6A/bmodnpEiWg18JYcos XvCAQ+tG7M3p3Ay7HewEr4iaMVJBPFxgvoBmz6gx0uPZQWCigounLrbaaIDao5oh42q6 lRRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1735928094; x=1736532894; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc :to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=s5sYvgQO7osKiTdrSBPhncy7ukYSUUJwMsQC6tmfdEE=; b=cVqr6sobDipaeFJBuMlh5zmKbWQjda1MLjABjLlGBlpJybayWeRAg5EXvAuhmEFPmC v9dtS5qbvhzRgBAlzOSPj5Y5taV2stMvy7xiDizEpIFCxWVhL2zSlaU0wfzTiu0zb0ux 2BD5M8R50DaS2dzQlvPIYpXTJDhPjq6C539NJWOSobZ9FlYv6XjoDXSlTrW3H5HdtVAo +eN/raQ0Z5nVadAP1POhOa4DwZvUpLBZT2LteL2U9D8zcXZ2uw0y7nBQz0KXRs4oLcIx 5DgYQLe8R0co0q4/fOfp/pLu5RNALBrQBBJhBppxSroZRY8B3/XOeWN/3dvVbl6Nw8Kh 0Efw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzwqfvVWm51VwR48prxocupj+C4/zDtd8XgAyQz9GE9j8yZ+c0H RbzvukpnNi9K2KPOPdfIwdipnKpN9Ep89gxk8kOLv3MjtU1pvpprbctoEQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncv9fp7IRnhoADtEeHNoIhjubZ5Czyc841amNpT3KXOQmV86Z5pcPb9BcIpwNjg TVL980xoyk7c8ZnvzuBkOLBc/uqo2goug9zPRfVFFC1zKhAddnn66yCcmJEPzPemcbeKeOfBE3s OvTVZEZ1kYPu+hu++WWxLzKveB/tem4m9ltNFXVQBI1itVaj31D5CnJCL0hgX5NRXKb0lh7JABp MFH8VDnKbFFJAPaQYMtDcRLdfNBUxFRXthVkJ26UWzQfN3vvcm73YGrp3njIfGK1rimOJwOuDhr Fbf+yR8n2J99blXFhdm+Xx3c7eb6rHcVEO6GtQm2JEpPWtXeotNR8FvkvI2xdzxotdw/2eE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IESw2hB7vOvNAiXwumFEOQC3VNmQpTdzDBM+2K1ZRrM0uC2jzzTqgG1sHCw2wMXZcxKRlstkw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1a88:b0:385:f4db:e33b with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-38a221fb051mr47079409f8f.21.1735928093852; Fri, 03 Jan 2025 10:14:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili.univ-paris-diderot.fr (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-38a546e822bsm15685620f8f.22.2025.01.03.10.14.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 03 Jan 2025 10:14:53 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Tournier Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:14:40 +0100 Message-ID: X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.46.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 1.24 X-Spam-Score: 1.24 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: AD3B21A260 X-TUID: FpM97mndTAyV * rfc/0001-rfc-process.md: New file. * rfc/0000-template.md: New file. Co-authored-by: Noé Lopez Change-Id: Ide88e70dc785ab954ccb42fb043625db12191208 --- rfc/0000-template.md | 59 +++++++++ rfc/0001-rfc-process.md | 257 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 316 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfc/0000-template.md create mode 100644 rfc/0001-rfc-process.md diff --git a/rfc/0000-template.md b/rfc/0000-template.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..a3913335ad --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0000-template.md @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ +title: +Issue: +Status: +Supporter: +Co-supporter(s): +date: +--- + +# Summary + +A one-paragraph explanation. Main sales pitch. + +# Motivation + +Describe the problem·s this RFC attempts to address as clearly as possible and +optionally give an example. Explain how the status quo is insufficient or not +ideal. + +# Detail Design + +Main part. The sections answers What are the tradeoffs of this proposal +compared to status quo or potential alternatives? Explain details, corner +cases, provide examples. Explain it so that someone familiar can understand. + +It is best to exemplify, contrived example too. If the Motivation section +describes something that is hard to do without this proposal, this is a good +place to show how easy that thing is to do with the proposal. + +## The Cost Of Reverting + +Will your proposed change cause a behaviour change? Assess the expected +impact on existing code on the following scale: + +0. No breakage +1. Breakage only in extremely rare cases (exotic or unknown cases) +2. Breakage in rare cases (user living in cutting-edge) +3. Breakage in common cases + +Explain why the benefits of the change outweigh the costs of breakage. +Describe the migration path. Consider specifying a compatibility warning for +one or more releases. Give examples of error that will be reported for +previously-working cases; do they make it easy for users to understand what +needs to change and why? + +How will your proposed change evolve with time? What is the cost of changing +the approach later? + +The aim is to explicitely consider beforehand potential Compatibility issues. + +# Drawbacks or Open Questions + +At submitting time, be upfront and trust that the community will help. + +At the end of the process, this section will be empty. If not, please be +explicit with the known issues by adding a dedicated subsection under Detail +design. + +The aim here is to ease when revisiting the topic. It will help to grasp the +essentials and invite to read all the discussion. diff --git a/rfc/0001-rfc-process.md b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..adb5365d73 --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.md @@ -0,0 +1,257 @@ +title: Request-For-Comment process +Issue: 66844 +Status: pending +Supporter: Simon Tournier +Co-supporters: Noé Lopez +date: 2023-10-31 +--- + +# Summary + +The “RFC” (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent +and structured path for major changes to enter the Guix project, so that all +stakeholders can make decisions collectively and be confident about the +direction it is evolving in. + +# Motivation + +Guix becomes a broadly used system with many contributors and the way we add +new features has been good but starts to show its limits. The lack of a clear +process easy to consult makes difficult to share a common evolution. + +There are a number of changes that are significant enough that they could +benefit from wider community consensus before being introduced. Either +because they introduce new concepts, big changes or are controversial enough +that not everybody will consent on the direction to take. + +Therefore, the purpose of this RFC is to introduce a process that allows to +bring the discussion upfront and strengthen decisions. This RFC is used to +bootstrap the process and further RFCs can be used to refine the process. + +It covers significant changes, where “significant” means any change that could +only be reverted at a high cost, or any change with the potential to disrupt +user scripts and programs or user workflows. Examples include: + +- changing the record type and/or its interfaces; +- adding or removing a 'guix' sub-command; +- changing the channel mechanism; +- changing project policy such as teams, decision-making, the + deprecation policy or this very document; +- changing the contributor workflow and related infrastructure + (mailing lists, source code repository and forge, continuous + integration, etc.) + +# Detailed design + +## When to follow this process + +This process is followed when one intends to make “significant” changes to the +Guix project. What constitutes a “significant” change may include the +following: + +- Changes that modify user-facing interfaces that may be relied on + - Command-line interfaces + - Core Scheme interfaces +- Big restructuring of packages +- Hard to revert changes +- Governance or changes to the way we collaborate + +Certain changes do not require an RFC: + +- Adding, updating packages, removing outdated packages +- Fixing security updates and bugs that don’t break interfaces + +A patch submission that contains any of the aforementioned substantial changes +may be asked to first submit a RFC. + +For general day-to-day contributions, please follow the regular process as +described by the manual, for example sections “Submitting Patches”, “Reviewing +the Work of Others”, “Teams” and “Making Decisions”. + +## How the process works + +1. Clone +2. Copy rfc/0000-template.md to rfc/00XY-good-name.md where good-name + is descriptive but not too long and XY increments +3. Fill RFC +4. Submit to guix-patches@gnu.org +5. Announce your RFC to guix-devel@gnu.org + +Make sure the RFC proposal is as well-written as you would expect the final +version of it to be. It does not mean that all the subtleties must be +considered at this point since that is the aim of Comment period. It means +that the RFC process is not a prospective brainstorming and the RFC proposal +formalize an idea for making it happen. + +The submission of a RFC proposal does not require an implementation. However, +to improve the chance of a successful RFC, it is recommended to have an idea +for implementing it. If an implementation is attached to the detailed design, +it might help the discussion. + +At this point, at least one other person must volunteer to be “co-supporter”. +The aim is to improve the chances that the RFC is both desired and likely to +be implemented. See “Co-supporter” section. + +Once supporter and co-supporter(s) are committed in the RFC process, the +discussion starts. Publicizing of the RFC on the project’s mailing list named +guix-devel is mandatory, and on other main communication channels is highly +recommended. + +After a number of rounds of comments, the discussion should settle and a +general consensus should emerge. Please follow the “Decision Making” and +“Timeline” sections. + +A successful RFC is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean +the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the +participants have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it. + +An unsuccessful RFC is **not** a judgment on the value of the work, so a +refusal should rather be interpreted as “let's discuss again with a different +angle”. The last state of an unsuccessful RFC is archived under the directory +rfc/withdrawn/ and the status quo continues. + +When time passing, a successful RFC might be replaced by another successful +RFC. The status of the former is thus modified and becomes 'deprecated'; it +is archived under the directory rfc/deprecated. + +At the end of the process, the status of the RFC is either successful, +withdrawn or deprecated. + +## Co-supporter + +A co-supporter is a contributor sufficiently familiar with the project's +practices, hence it is recommended, but not mandatory, to be a team member or +a contributor with commit access. The co-supporter helps the supporter, they +are both charged with keeping the RFC moving through the process. The +co-supporter role is to help the RFC supporter by being the timekeeper and +helps in pushing forward until process completion. + +The co-supporter doesn’t necessarily 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. + +## Timeline + +The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended +periods: + +digraph "RFC Timeline" { + submission[label=7 days>] + comments[label=30–60 days>] + last_call[label=14 days>] + withdrawn[label=Withdrawn, shape=rectangle] + final[label=Final, shape=rectangle] + + submission -> comments + submission -> withdrawn + comments -> last_call + last_call -> withdrawn + last_call -> final + + withdrawn -> submission [label="New version"] + + comments -> withdrawn +} + +The author may withdraw their RFC proposal at any time; and it might be +submitted again using a new issue number. + +### Submission (up to 7 days) + +Anyone might be author and submits their RFC proposal as a regular patch and +look for co-supporter(s). See “Co-supporter” section. + +Once the RFC proposal is co-supported, it marks the start of a Comment period. + +### Comment (at least 30 days, up to 60 days) + +The Comment period starts once the author publishes their RFC to guix-devel, +then the RFC is freely discussed by anyone for a period of at least 30 days. +It is up to the supporter and co-supporter(s) to ensure that sufficient +discussion is solicited. + +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. + +The author is encouraged to publish updated versions of their RFC at any point +during the discussion period. + +Once the discussion goes stale or after 60 days, the author must summarize the +state of the conversation and keep the final version. + +It moves to the last call period. + +### Last call (up to 14 days) + +Once the final version is published, team members have 14 days to cast one of +the following replies on the patch-tracking entry about the RFC: + +- Support: meaning that support in principle; +- Accept: meaning no opposition in principle; +- Disagree: meaning opposed in principle. + +This deliberation period strengthens the consensus; see “Decision Making”. + +The RFC is accepted if (1) at least 25% of the team members cast a reply, and +(2) no one disagrees. In other cases, the RFC is withdrawn. + +Anyone who is on a team (see file ‘teams.scm’) is a deliberating member and is +asked to reply. + +## Decision Making + +It is expected from all contributors, and even more so from team members, to +help in building consensus. By using consensus, we are committed to finding +solutions that everyone can live with. + +It implies that no decision is made against significant concerns and these +concerns are actively resolved with proposals that work for everyone. A +contributor wishing to block a proposal bears a special responsibility for +finding alternatives, proposing ideas/code or explaining the rationale for the +status quo. + +As a deliberating member, when replying “Disagree”, you mean (1) you cannot +live with the RFC and (2) you have been active and helping in discussing the +RFC during the Comment period. + +To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer +details, you are encouraged to read +. + +## Merging the outcome + +Once a consensus is made, a committer should do the following to merge the +RFC: + +1. Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links + for the original submission. +2. Commit everything. +3. Announce the establishment of the RFC to all. + +## Template of RFC + +The structure of the RFC is captured by the template; see the file +rfc/0000-template.md. Please use Markdown as markup language. + +## The Cost Of Reverting + +The RFC process can be refined by further RFCs. + +## Drawbacks + +There is a risk that the additional process will hinder contribution more than +it would help. We should stay alert that the process is only a way to help +contribution, not an end in itself. + +Of course, group decision-making processes are difficult to manage. + +The ease of commenting may bring a slightly diminished signal-to-noise ratio +in collected feedback, particularly on easily bike-shedded topics. + +## Open questions + +There are still questions regarding the desired scope of the process. While +we want to ensure that changes which affect the users are well-considered, we +certainly don’t want the process to become unduly burdensome. This is a +careful balance which will require care to maintain moving forward. base-commit: ce3ffac5d366ebf20e0d95779f2fe1ea6dde0202 -- 2.45.2