From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:1008:1e59::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms8.migadu.com with LMTPS id wD5CI7PXgmVHawAAkFu2QA (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:01:55 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id YE3sH7PXgmUttQAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:01:55 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=elephly.net header.s=zoho header.b="Jc/gP+Nq"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none; arc=pass ("zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1") ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1703073715; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=OrGQnLoO6etSYrkLAiZac9469D9eyQkFDnjUZAgthHs=; b=JaF7EcJwIce3mPwE0l909IqRX1cPHGhhc3b8qnY/WXOSKPu94XMaYbXgM/lns/FYsvvyDG xRWQQ71eVomfAmmF5a2iXGA86tn6GIRcJjZQIdbstUMts0v1cDE+hLAAG08TpTSK3bgpCr SIzIY/xZzj7xe6jPfpuVhhIepOQbtfXLc8cHxKXWmKM12glXkWzd747B1f8jGpQ0hLi/zk PMJIB1f93/nWKsWwKkE7+wpVne0Um2n76h2+7wMdKHCcLRbokI4ZjfGhkdcqiqg90RGbLO McbKB0dQb3shSPThWfDI6Le97UrdK3zixb/ovlsqw1FYFRXk9x2uHmMe8nDPlg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=elephly.net header.s=zoho header.b="Jc/gP+Nq"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=none; arc=pass ("zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1") ARC-Seal: i=2; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1703073715; a=rsa-sha256; cv=pass; b=VavB9GggmXzHNa5kfo9hToxAPQwOvpYgtHouoRQRxspd5qUev+RCI3SBYn2/6mBltbMrkR HuSJEevE0SwzbVhiZsQ8qriMEjy4Rj0yjVx1CkUzlvAQ2MFMKGcEjO2sFAqHJx0TkieVq3 Kb78EalDQWPyVRpxnBS28kRbwn/BlERV4vboHnM1iWO7MoLjAj0D2VLTEx/7hdFYFuLYdl Qns2shiJX8I+RRTCsNhCXTr6IXa1P4Het4+nGAkcNC1m9mPBGGgVY9SbsdE27ZPnOHGxq7 Z/7n93sOPZOM1NYxaDxXfBOtCV+DADTaxNVFxOp2wxTXfmROehYcJvBz6AX/6g== 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 397B6388D4 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 13:01:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rFvGA-0002iF-6m; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 07:01:10 -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 1rFvG6-0002hk-Rl for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 07:01:06 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o50.zoho.com ([136.143.188.50]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1rFvFy-0001fN-N5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 07:01:06 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1703073654; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=TsvfYSXppwXYGyRDbNDdXvAt3IgCXNAQuV87u6pAbsqmYVQ7uhxTNFNiWBBysum3Ppxm74/HzCgJA7xy+rGFBDPz5Z7Y2ekEdnMbSV/weSFk35aIbkwmc6rArh+wRfwO/DhLxUEAQD4QkmfACrmGokjaHKXFk5lo+fspfArqGew= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1703073654; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Cc:Date:Date:From:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:Subject:To:To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=OrGQnLoO6etSYrkLAiZac9469D9eyQkFDnjUZAgthHs=; b=RmrnyYIypsdVMkmiFwDaOCykKknr5gVxV6GDSaQm1NhvQk+4tLLqFr+QyMaTSkNm5LIGaZzmZvaM5gFrzfbKrvfHtduB+dYqRz13H+KyNuNbUmpeFmrk1DxuUC3gxn4zfdiEwmyws8Ts9aIHpu3arjkr/xLsvtMANAKrYB9glPg= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1703073654; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:Date:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=OrGQnLoO6etSYrkLAiZac9469D9eyQkFDnjUZAgthHs=; b=Jc/gP+NqtNvKZTVrO7auTuCzON10t0cVbef73gx+3B+i8zjVHMTf31sBDlpRKECN yMvoiENXmTjJe+Q1WnRAiue12QSEd1xBUS8uF+zg7qTETB24zDNdE3faMBIq6ZpzJsc RjBIQQFlj5mBqAd65Ujrd567MxSLbrQm4rTlMkk0= Received: from localhost (i5E862DDF.versanet.de [94.134.45.223]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1703073652413245.50532248964248; Wed, 20 Dec 2023 04:00:52 -0800 (PST) References: <87h6m7yrfh.fsf@gmail.com> <87v88u4bik.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.8; emacs 29.1 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: Simon Tournier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 12:49:01 +0100 In-reply-to: <87v88u4bik.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8734vx9j7z.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.50; envelope-from=rekado@elephly.net; helo=sender4-of-o50.zoho.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Scanner: mx13.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.89 X-Spam-Score: -2.89 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 397B6388D4 X-TUID: JOHuZzanzWed Hi Simon, > Well, more than 7 weeks later=E2=80=A6 Hum, does it mean that the Guix pr= oject > is not interested in formalizing some RFC? > > WDYT about the proposal? I just got back from travels and finally caught up with important email. I read the proposal and it looks good to me. Thank you for working on this! This would be the first project I contribute to that has an RFC process, so I don=E2=80=99t know what to look out for. My concerns may thus be completely out of touch with reality, so beware as you read on. It seems to me that the exact process is a little vague, especially with regard to how long the comment period should be, and what expectations there are during this period. There is a chance that the open comment period will lead to derailing discussions of tangents that make it hard for the submitter to answer to real issues (because it would become increasingly difficult to read all messages). I=E2=80=99m thinking of some of the big discussions on the devel list in the past that became too big to follow, and resulted in =E2=80=9Cconsensus by attrition=E2=80=9D. Do you know how other projects avoid needlessly draggi= ng on discussions about RFCs? Will *any* disagreement have to be addressed, or will there be an implicit weighing of opinions? As the project grows bigger there can be a problem of having inexperienced contributors (or those with qualifications that are irrelevant to the proposal) block the RFC without malicious intent by essentially requiring to be tutored on areas outside of their expertise. I wouldn=E2=80=99t trust myself to write an RFC without having played with = an implementation first. I have doubts whether RFCs that are written without a proof of concept could reasonably be evaluated. Often details and subtle problems are discovered only when playing with a patch, and this may happen only after an RFC has been accepted. Can we take back approval in this RFC process? And lastly a typo: * =E2=80=9Csubtilities=E2=80=9D should probably be =E2=80=9Csubtleties=E2= =80=9D. --=20 Ricardo