From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.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 mOnlEIU6W2cIlAAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:33:25 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id mOnlEIU6W2cIlAAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:33:25 +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=BFwEdzU9; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b="nh/pOTcW"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); 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=1734032004; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=mK2DumQbIZlUTFzs0YnksvULcHUR/j9Kfw8cUsKYvzw5eAhGgDL5CoMEDSo3YjSuNVCFjS Lq26e0AE87psQ2h3yjf0ElYYrdWRUTdxe9Gnn7WzufIiLQiRjs4BZ3NQhK0o38agv5YpB7 SIJeAMh/zTcJtZbsy+SYZQNHaa25K98+ZoHW0akqRYCUaZqolaM+Wsl34GLxPmhPeser/E j1CUY/hXGeFkQibKhE/irNxGc2WZm3FF8BRVMCnvk8dRjI0qVCsLwnjVEF+XLWVeWt4UkY 7jVywgFw0RM02B67UmdH0McryjvDRl7ECWYVGI9FqGc4UfkYs8H1u5WGGiNMfg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=BFwEdzU9; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b="nh/pOTcW"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); 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=1734032004; 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=U700yMN/nuxPIudi/5OFAsPsChF3o2G1TayxESeDVdc=; b=C8INiQZOReImHsNK0FPdTgs/qrABXtaAQuT3X+uReWyEALJx1AHcftlci0G0xrbZy2+jyy SR9Yl96zsT5xBc/qWPIf/R+MRY5wVH7GrANqQjMsHJswge3p8OJTadvZHeU6+8t1idjqrF LMyn6znd8GugvaBR0mPSGsfrSBVuXuXuelisHAaKAFNnuYmdLaKORFTzggFFezcWbXO3Lh NYxTpiUwwMDHLOW3icdAmPl6K4J17el9ssE1AyK5ZATw3eGK/p1SUF3O6ANg2H5otoOzck 2viMdMe1oJPZXTc44kH+NqUCuQ5Bddgfuj4IxHSpWPhCpVuW3AjqQBEXSV/qaA== 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 B983D8FC5A for ; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:33:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tLovp-0001ib-Gv; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:33:05 -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 1tLovn-0001iN-S4 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:33:03 -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 1tLovn-0007ls-H9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:33:03 -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:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Subject; bh=U700yMN/nuxPIudi/5OFAsPsChF3o2G1TayxESeDVdc=; b=BFwEdzU9IFptHG1OpuuvA0Vp3O2rXrtdMZ3vdCHz5jCujaHdsJSD8Q/F3mWyRMVIGvAAOSZAYw/Uedqw89Em5nbqP88a8H7GZbMfoRbtHaMvEHslgoy9nTWO/VIpoCqWLSvLewYUqQ5oXp/9P+FPBgrS0dRn9iEv/uQ4xWRhkX8sugXwE34HuFDeNP72iOTa2On+IfoWDP/a8iaVAct+B8hxh61+5ZskRnVeaU9PCbCDAVZqNlinADR3kmG2vrCX4bCmllVlwhKy4uih11uggHZDAdKPNd3Je/edhRoeVoZladJG90RPHFLICu4uyGBUeQ3YQwyUxwO0OaBtb/7FnA==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tLovm-0004O4-Ar for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:33:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v3] 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: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:33:02 +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: 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=B74736.173403194016771 (code B ref 74736); Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:33:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Dec 2024 19:32:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40382 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tLov4-0004MQ-PZ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:32:19 -0500 Received: from [209.85.128.43] (port=49328 helo=mail-wm1-f43.google.com) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tLov1-0004Lg-4k for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:32:17 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43623f0c574so7198475e9.2 for <74736@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:32:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1734031861; x=1734636661; 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=U700yMN/nuxPIudi/5OFAsPsChF3o2G1TayxESeDVdc=; b=nh/pOTcWNtQXALHxWr0X2FE8nNwGQmWlIoDIISilP1YTKEo73HN3huzEfuBLJn7A0D xfIiUVRg63VBxuFcSerhfZC40UY9ulDK5ASglvg1szfWEQTof+aWO3ofs07lWjj7/d1G O9Ed7hFcVSv2ALrSgsSdsAROVZ5HfWZxATuRVZEK3lO50Fc7LjhUh5khf/qkbQXLT5rC 6Rai5Vl1ZLXHmoeTyb6p12QXDqUFIKwO8chnYe2NZZjIQ4La/nDZG6Hs4b4z3KnzAWBd oIVatZEtq9VrKOX0gW8iyTsuUFZBPmRmk4kXnqPBNdNgJrLiLNNRm96GIKXU+15x4CA2 aV8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1734031861; x=1734636661; 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=U700yMN/nuxPIudi/5OFAsPsChF3o2G1TayxESeDVdc=; b=JfewcYRcg6Itft8J++REglKq3+IffslswetgqAfGuURZwX+IWigtyIBJC+Kq2xeyLc 3KP1cEHIITv8AfQrcPCAwYhKoWcDgBBCv2A111LXdUPiJB02ZkWFvY2g8VXUK7rj9PuT jj9NznYk04lMMnz2zd4swE2YaCsD8Yv29KNji2LtNfsAW3U+vBuz0PA06SLJ/GID1fs6 UJv9qTS9icdusleOxbqTFRdqrl8EgndiV2SR4yibwPl7wa409Qm3b3OX91jO0m1dWRYF y9SVOoKZChEfaomnSlVakW019M6RIa312HaxnnNeeQQqXAzpbYvb+BC3rlq3BFozVan9 FLuw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzcrHAXGz10EEnyLKcUJ+W1S9gOLQ2LD2JL7aGo87TbO3RZciuA Zq3CKl3ak/dAZdDRX7UVYzE4pAUmsdCSf1OYslt9DdAR5aL2q9RrrRcRIQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctg9USEr3wKtvNWvYqaRLTcc85Arb7RSeLAluxSdyrPhVl8Q3QYbPMLL5K4vDH QIAqE7Rp1ygR/exVULBoPL5eafjsaR/VYfo5HPEgLxtoKDGGbmSIbct4TS+YKUvxrsacImWZ+Az x0csp+FOBNoYQ/jfxGYc0Q5JzvQ8mCGZC/mI2T628H5Vv3WFjpKjg6InDgXnbwYO3w11W0BhDn3 fVMe2XCWteSqdGa2P5YRAuXwNqoLQCFEwSuJsphhmq+b9sjFtv76Ft7h9G8VFjVIUasIOAEr2dQ dzVon9aFoRP/6JOzG5/iJi8VCs7R6784IFMGKCPSQdQchMM/squgerx8kJPiMGYJ8w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFLqZDv2o/O1BSys/sRSZLzzETTDZeeYfZj3OneN3o7A97eFlZg2rMtSMguvoBiRxPle5ZZPQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b09:b0:436:1b7a:c0b4 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4361c3454dbmr66100905e9.1.1734031860712; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:31:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain (2a01cb08829ff8006d2f327432852397.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr. [2a01:cb08:829f:f800:6d2f:3274:3285:2397]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-43625553234sm26351415e9.3.2024.12.12.11.30.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:31:00 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Tournier Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:30:56 +0100 Message-ID: <493bcc076f206ec134959268f55a9358b4886b88.1734031781.git.zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> 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-Spam-Score: -2.99 X-Spam-Score: -2.99 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: B983D8FC5A X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-TUID: XeP+PrIwv6Dr * rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt: New file. * rfc/0000-template.txt: New file. Co-authored-by: Noé Lopez Change-Id: Ide88e70dc785ab954ccb42fb043625db12191208 --- rfc/0000-template.txt | 76 ++++++++++++ rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt | 248 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 324 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfc/0000-template.txt create mode 100644 rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt diff --git a/rfc/0000-template.txt b/rfc/0000-template.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8c4077e753 --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0000-template.txt @@ -0,0 +1,76 @@ +# -*- mode:org -*- +#+TITLE: +#+DATE: + ++ Issue: ++ Status: ++ Supporter: ++ Co-supporter(s): + +* 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. + +** Backward compatibility + +# Christopher Baines: +# I'm struggling to think of exactly how backwards compatibility would +# apply to potential RFCs for Guix. + +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? + +The aim is to explicitely consider beforehand potential Backward Compatibility +issue. + +** Forward compatibility + +# Christopher Baines: +# I do think it's worth explicitly bringing up something like the "cost of +# reverting". That is, it's important to discuss things more if there's a +# high cost to changing the approach later. For these "high cost of later +# change" situations, the RFC process will probably be particularly +# valuable. + +# Noé Lopez: +# I think this section could apply very well to governance proposals. + +How will your proposed change evolve with time? What is the cost of changing +the approach later? + +* Unresolved questions + +Explicitly list any remaining issues. At submitting time, be upfront and +trust that the community will help. At reviewing time, this section tracks +the details about the status of the process. + +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. diff --git a/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..52d851f879 --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +# -*- mode:org -*- +#+TITLE: Request-For-Comment process +#+DATE: 2023-10-31 + ++ Issue: 66844 ++ Status: pending ++ Supporter: Simon Tournier ++ Co-supporters: Noé Lopez + +* Summary + +The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent +and structured path for major changes and features to enter the Guix project, +so that all stakeholders can make decisions collectively and be confident +about the direction it is evolving in. + +* Motivation + +The current way that we add new features to Guix has been good for early +development, but it is starting to show its limits as Guix becomes a broadly +used system with many contributors. Changes might be slowed down by the lack +of structure to acquire consensus, lack of a central place to consult +contributors and users, and lack of clear deadlines. This is a proposal for a +more principled RFC process to make it a more integral part of the overall +development process, and one that is followed consistently to introduce +substantial features. + +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.) + +For concrete past examples where this RFC process would be helpful: + + - Removing input labels from package definitions, #49169 + - Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment', #50960 + + Trustable "guix pull", #22883 + + Add "Deprecation Policy", #72840 + + Collaboration via team and branch-features, several places over all the + mailing lists. + +* Detailed Design + +** When To Follow This Trocess + +This process is followed when one intends to make "substantial" changes to the +Guix project. What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on +community norms, but 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 and 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 + +For general day-to-day contributions, please follow the regular process as +described by manual sections "Submitting Patches", "Reviewing the Work of +Others", "Teams" and "Making Decisions". + +A patch submission that contains any of the aforementioned substantial changes +may be asked to first submit a RFC. + +** How the process works + + 1. Clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git + 2. Copy rfc/0000-template.org to rfc/00XY-good-name.org 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 proposal is as well-written as you would expect the final +version of it to be. It does not mean that all the subtilities must be +considered at this point since that is the aim of review discussion. It means +that the RFC process is not a prospective brainstorming and the proposal +formalize an idea for making it happen. + +The submission of a proposal does not require an implementation. However, to +improve the chance of a successful RFC, it is ecommended 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. + +Once supporter and co-supporter(s) are committed in the RFC process, the +review 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 review, the discussion should settle and a general +consensus should emerge. Please follow the "Decision Process" 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/. + +** 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 contributor +with commit access. The co-supporter helps the supporter, they are both +charged with keeping the proposal moving through the process. The +co-supporter role is to help the proposal 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: + + submission (7d) ⟶ comments (30–60d) ⟶ last call (14d) ⟶ withdrawn OR final + +The author may withdraw their RFC proposal at any time; and it might be +submitted again. + +*** 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. + +*** Comment (at least 30 days, up to 60 days) + +The comment period starts once the author publishes their RFC to guix-devel, +then the proposal is freely discussed 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 proposal 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) + +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 + - =0 / 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 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 not, the +proposal is archived and the statu quo continues. + + +** Decision Making: consensus + +It is expected from all contributors, and even more so from committers, to +help build consensus and make decisions based on 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, without or with commit access, wishing to block a proposal bears +a special responsibility for finding alternatives, proposing ideas/code or +explaining the rationale for the status quo. + +To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer +details, you are encouraged to read +. + +** Merging the outcome + +Once a consesus 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 Debbugs 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.txt. Please use Markdown as markup language. + +** Backward Compatibility + +None. + +** Forward compatibility + +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. + +* Unresolved questions base-commit: 93e1586116f39a30ba1fcb67bd839a43533dfaf4 -- 2.45.2