From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>,
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>,
Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
Cc: efraim@flashner.co.il, guix-devel@gnu.org,
guix-maintainers@gnu.org, ludo@gnu.org, mail@cbaines.net,
rekado@elephly.net, 74736@debbugs.gnu.org,
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:28:54 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ed13hd1l.fsf@wireframe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87msfr1zeu.fsf@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2062 bytes --]
On 2025-01-15, Simon Tournier wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 at 16:34, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
>> Concerning consensus, I am mildly worried about deadlocks (including
>> when trying to modify this RFC/GCD). What happens if some person insists
>> on disapproving?
>
> Today, how does it happen?
>
> Well, I think that better to root the process on what we did over the
> past 12 years. :-) And for now, we always managed the situation, I
> guess. ;-)
>
> Moreover, it’s bounded by an active participation during the “Discussion
> Period”. Therefore, if one person cannot live with the final state, it
> means we failed to find a solution based on what we agree. Somehow, the
> whole idea with consensus is to be pro-active in resolving locks before
> they happen, well that’s my understanding. :-)
I think it is important to not think of the peson as blocking consensus
but to focus on the unresolved issue as blocking consensus. This leads
to identifying what remains to be fixed, rather than interpersonal
conflicts and finger pointing and hurt feelings.
It is a subtle difference, and it is reflected in the functional aspects
of last proposal I reviewed, as they must be involved in the discussion
in order to disapprove of a decision. Getting the framing of focusing on
the issues raised rather than the people raising the issues into our
minds might take more work. :)
> Yes, I agree what happens with examples as: 3/4 support the proposal and
> 1/4 disagree?
Yes, I worry then you are starting to approach voting, where it is more
important to rally your supporters than discuss with and understand
those who think most differently.
With consensus process, it is often a good strategy to get the feedback
and build understanding with the people most likely to dissent, by
honestly listening to their perspective, rather than starting off with a
majority opinion of what "everybody" already agrees with, and then
pressuring everyone else to go along with it.
live well,
vagrant
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-15 23:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-31 11:14 Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation Simon Tournier
2023-11-16 15:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-11-20 9:42 ` Simon Tournier
2023-11-22 18:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-11-23 7:04 ` Efraim Flashner
2023-11-28 13:34 ` Simon Tournier
2023-12-19 12:33 ` Simon Tournier
2023-12-20 11:49 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2024-02-03 10:09 ` Simon Tournier
2024-02-03 10:34 ` [post Guix Days] Guix Common Document (was: Request-For-Comment process) Simon Tournier
2024-02-07 8:27 ` Efraim Flashner
2025-01-03 18:38 ` Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5) Simon Tournier
2025-01-07 10:40 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-08 15:15 ` Suhail Singh
2025-01-09 17:33 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-09 23:49 ` bokr
2025-01-10 6:26 ` Suhail Singh
2025-01-15 18:42 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10 0:07 ` Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC) Simon Tournier
2025-01-12 15:11 ` Arun Isaac
2025-01-15 15:34 ` Andreas Enge
2025-01-15 21:50 ` Guix Common Document process (v7) indieterminacy
2025-01-15 22:32 ` Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC) Simon Tournier
2025-01-15 22:32 ` [bug#74736] " Simon Tournier
2025-01-15 23:28 ` Vagrant Cascadian [this message]
2025-01-16 9:23 ` Andreas Enge
2025-01-16 12:04 ` Guix Common Document process (v7) Suhail Singh
2025-01-16 16:10 ` bug#74736: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-16 18:01 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-17 9:37 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-15 19:18 ` Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC) Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 13:21 ` Arun Isaac
2025-01-14 18:28 ` bokr
2025-01-15 19:22 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-17 1:06 ` Guix Consensus Document process (v10) Simon Tournier
2025-01-19 21:52 ` Ludovic Courtès
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87ed13hd1l.fsf@wireframe \
--to=vagrant@debian.org \
--cc=74736@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=andreas@enge.fr \
--cc=arunisaac@systemreboot.net \
--cc=efraim@flashner.co.il \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=guix-maintainers@gnu.org \
--cc=janneke@gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=mail@cbaines.net \
--cc=rekado@elephly.net \
--cc=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.