From: Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: "Noé Lopez" <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>, "Noé Lopez" <noelopez@free.fr>,
"Christopher Baines" <mail@cbaines.net>,
74736@debbugs.gnu.org,
"Simon Tournier" <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process.
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 08:44:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h667nmdk.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y0zn4lvi.fsf_-_@gnu.org> ("Ludovic Courtès"'s message of "Mon, 06 Jan 2025 23:29:21 +0100")
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Hello,
> As proposed before, here’s a reworked version based on v5. The intent
> is to keep the spirit and process unchanged compared to v5, while making
> the document a bit more concise (239 lines, v5 was 322), improving
> consistency for key words, hopefully improving wording, fixing
> grammatical issues, and adding Markdown ornaments where appropriate.
[..]
> Thoughts?
> # Motivation
Am I right that the main purpose/intent is (not trying to twist anyone's words)
> Day-to-day work on Guix revolves around informal interactions, peer
> review, and consensus-based decision making. As the community grows, so
> does the stream of proposed changes, and no single person is able to
> keep track of all of them.
* to draw more attention to / have important discussions stand out
more in all the "noise", and guided by
> The RFC process is a mechanism to determine whether a proposed change is
> “significant” enough to require attention from the community at large
> and if so, to provide a documented way to bring about broad community
> discussion and to collectively decide on the proposal.
* a collective decision on what "important" is?
So, in effect a "noise" filter / focus mechanism for the most important
changes. That seems like a very good idea to me!
> ## 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.
I have no personal experience with RFC processes and this seems
lightweight enough to begin with. A drawback could be that it slows
development down, but for important changes that may be a good thing?
Other than that I see only advantages, well done.
The only things that I could suggest is to see if we should make it even
be more lightweight/nimble as a first version, e.g, require only two
*persons*, so that two authors could start a submission
The RFC is *submitted* once it has at least one co-author or
supporter in addition to the initial author(s).
or use shorter periods, e.g.
submission[label=<Submission Period<br />up to 7 days>]
comments[label=<Discussion Period<br />15–60 days>]
deliberation[label=<Deliberation Period<br />8-14 days>]
but I have no strong opinion on these.
[..]
> 2. Copy `0000-template.md` to `00XY-short-name.md` where `short-name`
> is a short descriptive name long and `XY` is the sequence number.
^
"long" typo?
Greetings,
Janneke
--
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org
Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® https://AvatarAcademy.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-10 7:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-08 12:29 [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-08 12:31 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 1/1] rfc: " Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-12 18:14 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] " Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-12 19:47 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-14 10:06 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-23 17:58 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-26 11:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-09 20:47 ` Artyom V. Poptsov
2024-12-12 19:30 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v3] rfc: " Simon Tournier
2024-12-14 10:47 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-22 13:06 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-22 13:56 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v4 0/1] " Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-22 13:56 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v4 1/1] " Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-23 14:42 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] " Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-23 17:33 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-26 11:28 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-31 15:23 ` Simon Tournier
2024-12-29 18:31 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2024-12-30 11:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2024-12-30 11:58 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-04 17:28 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-05 12:51 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-06 10:29 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-06 17:40 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-08 10:53 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-09 13:27 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-09 22:48 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10 10:39 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-10 13:02 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-03 18:14 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v5] rfc: " Simon Tournier
2025-01-06 22:29 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-07 17:06 ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-08 15:12 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process Suhail Singh
2025-01-09 17:21 ` Simon Tournier
[not found] ` <825F8319-4F41-4F4C-81B3-2C84A73A13CF@housseini.me>
2025-01-08 6:33 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process reza via Guix-patches via
2025-01-09 23:22 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-08 16:26 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process pukkamustard
2025-01-09 17:18 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-09 21:00 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-09 21:16 ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-09 16:21 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process Simon Tournier
2025-01-09 22:32 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-09 23:56 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10 0:40 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process Vagrant Cascadian
2025-01-10 12:25 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10 7:44 ` Janneke Nieuwenhuizen [this message]
2025-01-10 12:45 ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10 13:17 ` Janneke Nieuwenhuizen
2025-01-07 19:40 ` [bug#74736] Add Request-For-Comment process Ricardo Wurmus
2025-01-09 23:45 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v7] Add Guix Common Document process Simon Tournier
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=87h667nmdk.fsf@gnu.org \
--to=janneke@gnu.org \
--cc=74736@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
--cc=mail@cbaines.net \
--cc=noe@xn--no-cja.eu \
--cc=noelopez@free.fr \
--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.