From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.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 eFSBNCM9gGdIbwAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 21:18:28 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id eFSBNCM9gGdIbwAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 22:18:27 +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=bZdkjpTg; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=lZgpBvNs; 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=1736457507; 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=HGmMD+sFnj6Wc9FO1H4iaNz78Y/voJccrWWrGvZK2YE=; b=olI6u47Z5E9DHLMJUgXEcy26Qyh+EM/1lQ10ohRcztkUvK5ctWdQctMp0R7urE+1qEEjHR HDaM5wLEQRj4N/osd2c+vJsM3jEnaC3b9oO8zgcFT86UdxQSDGHR71rbwFe0NoqtFXqoIu pvjN5ecN6d4JjC1tau0wMYSvyTzi/bGb4arwj4/CU/ZAJvQYkzUBB7G1Bq1gw+Aop8Vlry 6LZv+NTeZjutdvQ7FvIe4JKmho4272rLUbV2xzf6ahXcFV8D371/rz9yyKAOb02hr5hem7 f1CWR9x8jtz2CP+VAUp+k4xD0UjIRWSQOC0a0/0K5DI1UyaUHg+GhIwAZcFhaA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=bZdkjpTg; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=lZgpBvNs; 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=1736457507; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=kqwgp4Ri99UQ33fBs8c8gxstRVXHLAMBPHBpa9vuNNzj9SB15EQZHok+0fqCouYcLxe8jn vhoklA7mz48Td+5zgbCK+rRKHm9hR7BoqRT3iIWmUIwIFMQksYOFxz8WsoqOwY0elhVtDI AnEJitrQdSVIUwoKX8XbpFyh7L1AXLbiXC86ju62pURWfLFMr+CUu2dolJ8Gio35Silkrl aUN0z19eWL2lpJSWzk1RITWNM0bhq5BsXJfTqWE+PPvVbSPW9pvnYFJQG81Z2QvxUq8C8W Lqc5Jjb29AOYNSnNB1Q9lcA/1UueDczxbTuyJhp2oDQk4d+rrasECayZfV/ykg== 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 5DEC3935E3 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 22:18:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVzup-0002eL-3I; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:18:07 -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 1tVzuk-0002ds-NC for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:18:05 -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 1tVzuk-0003M1-Dp for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:18:02 -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=HGmMD+sFnj6Wc9FO1H4iaNz78Y/voJccrWWrGvZK2YE=; b=bZdkjpTgWTNiMqvX8nPSNILkSlMV5JKRbiDXW6v9d/m6MXqAIy0PHnNMERFlGD9PAvrps5R+zEvr8F3jR1rnL1u3lm1PT48/aUL5RG+aVbbT257T2fgWUWyua26dYC8KnUAj1Po+7X0BH51aZoDFGVW8uNvPnW7o0Ik0g9VEDeylb+LpgWyggwYepoIOff+Hb8+vbXg8BLRbKLjBF7qK5WcMnhahxMav1mm0o0D7/+5D4BBvURBAd1WvvJaRUPr568t/DkEkIz0cPeRo3mGCDlffIxNDmTf8tTTzDMgoURtLYd29yOc9EqIemzZ8LI9YAhey+ejixSJhhYrgjOlyyA==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVzuk-0005uR-13 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:18:02 -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, 09 Jan 2025 21:18:01 +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: "pukkamustard" Cc: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173645743322644 (code B ref 74736); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 21:18:01 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jan 2025 21:17:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54694 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVztx-0005tA-1F for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:17:13 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56040) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVztt-0005sn-Vr for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:17:11 -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 1tVztn-0003ID-VC; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:17:04 -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=HGmMD+sFnj6Wc9FO1H4iaNz78Y/voJccrWWrGvZK2YE=; b=lZgpBvNsSC+IoBIJ82/j BG+9iHWbXGbFbidleJaC+SCz6LjmVIF6wK+5UVKmukDKzsJNC9UmWS2pXQuwkB+x90G69yow0/QMQ K4QCfPhutHNUrxfeksXTzw/GcVZwefDdpSW/Ci7Gu8PCdLd4YuB5gjmWJo0CeFevki+Bme8h8AbVz tnR0VQk806QPgGCpzJhwI7rV7I/h0JrWKQQ2pss3SmP49eIXazHFUfOga+1MmU36R9vvF/yJ1Y2qG kX61EXN1Zsjhwfex+xHY4JEvswPe6GEn1brBFi21nxanYtiI/T+kvOP9KSpJJwMYCwjCo7TDk1/S3 LOsdoYoP+RjcAg==; From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= In-Reply-To: (pukkamustard@posteo.net's message of "Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:26:40 +0000") References: Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 22:16:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87frlrofgd.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: -6.47 X-Spam-Score: -6.47 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 5DEC3935E3 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx10.migadu.com X-TUID: 2tqnaq5yda1h Hello pukkamustard, Thanks for insightful comments! "pukkamustard" skribis: > - I had to think if I am a _team member_ or not. The term is not defined = in the > document. I think this is mostly due to there not being a RFC on teams = (yet). > Still, to make the Process RFC understandable, I'd add a brief explanat= ion of > what team members are (i.e. members in etc/teams.scm).=20 A mistake of mine in v6; we should reintroduce a mention of =E2=80=98etc/teams.scm=E2=80=99 or a reference to the manual. > Likewise, I think the Process RFC would be simpler to understand if fee= dback > is required from a fixed number of team members instead of a percentage. Wouldn=E2=80=99t a fixed number of people run the risk of letting a few peo= ple move forward despite general apathy? (Given that that fixed number might represent 25% of team members today, and 5% a few years from now.) > - The term "supporter" is used for two things where it's not clear if > it's the same: > > 1. People listed as supporters in the RFC metadata. > 2. Team members that respond with "I support" during the Deliberation > Period. Yeah, =E2=80=9Csponsors=E2=80=9D may work better for (1). > Furthermore, in the section "Submission Period" it says that authors > can look for supporters. But the wording in the "Deliberation Period" > suggests that the "I support" emails should only be sent in the > Deliberation Period when the final version is published. We could state that anything that comes before or after the Deliberation Period is ignored, to avoid the ambiguity. > I'd suggest renaming the RFC state "Final" to "Accepted". Agreed (that was an omission). > - In Section "Deliberation Period" the team member response is "I disappr= ove" > but in the next section the term "disagree" is used. I'd use the same t= erm for > clarity. Oops, agreed. > - The "I disapprove" reply is only allowed if member actively proposed > alternative solutions during the "Discussion Period". I feel that might= be a > bit of a strong requirement as that means you can not disapprove a RFC = if you > only see it after the "Deliberation Period" has started. Maybe that's o= k as > RFCs need to be announced to guix-devel. Still it might be a bit strong= . Maybe > something along the lines: "A team member sending this reply must expla= in > their disapproval and should suggest constructive changes to the propos= al that > would make it approvable." Hmm yeah, I see what you mean; it shouldn=E2=80=99t be understood as =E2=80= =9CI disapprove=E2=80=9D is strictly forbidden for people who have not made counter-proposals during the discussion. Yet, I agree with Simon that =E2=80=9CI disapprove=E2=80=9D should be discouraged in this case. Probabl= y we can fine tune the words. > - I think the name "Guix Consensus Documents (GCD)" would be slightly > funnier - a play on greatest common divisor (as mentioned by Simon). > But I think RFC is a term that is more widely understood and that's > fine. Heheh. I=E2=80=99m fine either way but I=E2=80=99m already getting used to =E2=80= =9CRFC=E2=80=9D. :-) > I will be afk during the Deliberation Period (and not present in > Brussels) but I think this is an important step for Guix and am fine > with being added to the `supporters` field. Thanks. Too bad we won=E2=80=99t meet in Brussels though. Ludo=E2=80=99.