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 +OX/NawIgGeddwAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:34:37 +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 +OX/NawIgGeddwAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 18:34:37 +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=Nr6EJKaP; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=m6l3osdh; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1736444076; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to: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=qsb/L5EmZrpxFD5pKlOM46dvUnOeEm2rNwwvD7FV+o8=; b=gcGwrg/7dXpk4CxA/kdGjc8jiSTxpb8xdvtJRSK6xRDtDRKYj/eFmmaZJhglS0SSSO1TVi LBg5AXRTZbuDu5jSR7NV6Q9V/uOf2Ip+YOpUGkm4AYXPPq+kPQLdvDUM2XpjaTC5bE1WQV SFOoZjByWsgMzPuRxxfGTy4iSktotpHkUT/2NdQawgJ232mstbvSQ4hucm8gKC8go+bU+q 5m/soSw1vg3o0rgzWVZ4YrYYDf/PiWdDlXf3ewouC0BCgcR604fcl+8zttE0ctP5qSV3Gc 5TfQX3uBkb8Ij6MqLexIz/Ox8NTScTGCXUPAMlTB+vWBSTr1+ygDhmciKTl4Lg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=Nr6EJKaP; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20230601 header.b=m6l3osdh; 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=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), DKIM not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1736444076; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=LfKklW+PEF6feB838MsROk3uws1sWJ2RV3irhfJmQGx9nYX99FL611QIMeDQMDsJu16n6d 0eNB6RFi1mGZcfd4jAPO0gczCpjcPzeqGycsgowMpPs/bdiRs3ZJ2n1AbB7nMCEgrhgJt6 z76XV/g694qxTyvY0+jzpkFsv8csaiIdjnHFDoV/QjcY7jwLl0ePz58W6mjefCkqkLE3q8 AhT9IxNx/GtcCS6WjkrH6VaWwoL92a8rmSWXBnrh6yqnrOy/uhmPRuiu/QANPQHzUsio/A 41Q5Ufze2vmbmIpT3e3S1U4pidJwPLTD+AKY5wdvCGagyLsyHcHahXJt5oAa4w== 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 83C5918D1F for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 18:34:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwQ2-0004fR-Rd; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:06 -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 1tVwQ0-0004eG-MB for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:04 -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 1tVwPz-0003NC-8H for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:04 -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=qsb/L5EmZrpxFD5pKlOM46dvUnOeEm2rNwwvD7FV+o8=; b=Nr6EJKaPs9drBRgY8dQjGtrQ/Ati8JhO65jkirE5XxSxywODxEvs8eopH4qZHpTqEMk59LxYPd7glUhxvM1uy+GJzW33vA4hlDgIpDnmkP9OmaL39IKtonOv3ScDVB327GUqDBa8a42YUNWnqqZBJX4MqvqOTgPF09vgIYQqXdI83b0y+zXn1SLQO7SJIWOwO09wgqgDjpJJ1SAgVqANPfl5zFfgVwKqH8WhGzh4skMoVndvgvj1+HyaUq3IQU92LPfrQCtGB2TwfLWllOFehsIfJW7G9Eag1ZLLW06wMCbk2Bl1cwFslxq1jC+jhe3fQpe1SD8w3wa5Rafpnx5cbQ==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwPz-0003xp-2X for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:34:03 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: Simon Tournier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:34:03 +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 , 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173644402115191 (code B ref 74736); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 17:34:03 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jan 2025 17:33:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54120 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwPc-0003ws-L5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:33:41 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-x32d.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32d]:59887) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tVwPR-0003w5-CN for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 12:33:33 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-436281c8a38so9444895e9.3 for <74736@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:33:29 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1736444003; x=1737048803; darn=debbugs.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=qsb/L5EmZrpxFD5pKlOM46dvUnOeEm2rNwwvD7FV+o8=; b=m6l3osdhOJ8Sg7A7ECHwUfP2mpP0XKBHgfprCqxO2qQrl6O5omuSC7i80FN1417tS+ RzW2oiyDTL6PQW3faUZ732DyV7aUrB2gcob2UDnM3Q1femvpeWFWQBbaC6eYGESalovg 4QU2iFSJBo5tFevcLKibvruYig+mdJV8lZrbQ11EdjG5Ex+0nmxtaUfqbn5n1RVMdNGq RSNVP0pM6l8fkGAHqD8OhFifm9mhojo0WwRany7BnBSDMzp/5zi64ycJvCS3GxY2a+O/ 8MIKWC5DluRKAoiIG7hQIUjTQ+95+cYgWwe4RS0p6/LApeyUBy4CBoVMYeNUvVJwbatj mEww== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1736444003; x=1737048803; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qsb/L5EmZrpxFD5pKlOM46dvUnOeEm2rNwwvD7FV+o8=; b=aJ2NFKIbSBwjzp+Sd3F80UPodzqnGaLg6ZqQYv70odfYQBId4rtsgGIzYhf8xpRgip lOlAufz8uSI9y3Z+G7kcEdfHj7vTsayVjNkW609/wa6TiQ3h5gPmm4TmudT8hmA8QQJ0 HPSDbCV2eLDB9gAXZSK/9EppHatPKtyVHlnYMV4H/k2vm2gsm/8oSM+yHIsUlcTQy2+9 Q/wGcuB8tWsNb6MjioO4oNwvziSFVtQIjHmTP04rtRzeyjfdeYIubgQCoP/f8TjewCXb kEVwpyhTwYpMNcXQSBaZ+mI1v4FpnhaJ1AW8nFvjnehv7al0PSr0+xmoCuhL/rCpSS1i m8OA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXDJvZAZTmJONU/CRsNFEbJXEp9P/pSQfHCH4k9+oaT6aiIEPZ+XbXuZfijSgyu/SxAXVHUSg==@debbugs.gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyR+PEQ3xS3jivd2o4L2hczL0jq48OcGiwuFA0yT72W/seuHOHC 8eW4pHLVB1YbifTqk20RI9e4GHQX828sJqUsXSIUBmX4xHlVQPJexGpvyQ== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctdFWHBYlmr+glmPykHuzFR5F5fKyUkt6CJqlcsAmYbV/Mic4xxAF/tjz3/MRJ KigZfjl8utP3USEkvunmXDvbzJfFioeZGL1J0Jgfi3Dq9NuYlesKB7Eb+YCGHS852Z/glI7Dt9l R/rjD6c3IywVwct1fEIXkPKRHQpqxdKwrIc+U5B47FYkAGtANUf1gHXXUE0EHXvWfflsDuA1IpU tjZin96pbjttn1RkyJ+F1DvWE42htDo0SPyvAX24YOATjjyFQ/fjmX+lrlAhOdjyTmyQYrgKV0Q NJf9vJGJxIPPaJHx1OYups5LNhwZvZhCvc8hIg+RKA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGxpviZD2UUACiQceKc5gtVBbgDsju3D6LBvg97oj1gaFjffNidXXqglcCHWtLjFde80EnFXA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3516:b0:436:5165:f206 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-436e27075eemr79246795e9.31.1736444003017; Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:33:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lili (roam-nat-fw-prg-194-254-61-45.net.univ-paris-diderot.fr. [194.254.61.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-436e2ddcda3sm61576125e9.22.2025.01.09.09.33.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Jan 2025 09:33:22 -0800 (PST) From: Simon Tournier In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 18:18:40 +0100 Message-ID: <87o70f52j3.fsf@gmail.com> 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: -2.90 X-Spam-Score: -2.90 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 83C5918D1F X-Migadu-Scanner: mx10.migadu.com X-TUID: QlpB4Q095ee+ Hi, On Wed, 08 Jan 2025 at 16:26, "pukkamustard" wrot= e: > - 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 Yes, that=E2=80=99s the idea. Ludo pointed that teams.scm file and it was = in v5 but not in v6. Maybe something lost in translation. :-) > 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= . I > believe there has been some discussion on this, that I have not been ab= le to > follow completely, so ignore if already discussed and agreed upon. What do you suggest? Well, FWIW, some explanations, maybe it could help to find a better way. It appears to me easier to know if the quorum is reached or not, I guess. ./etc/teams.scm list-teams | recsel -CP members | sort | uniq | wc -l I think that the input of some team members might happen on the Discussion Period and not specifically on the Deliberation Period. Well, then you would tell me: I cannot have an opinion on any topic. :-) Or I do not have the bandwidth to follow all the discussion. Maybe. But then, if we are not able to express an opinion on such topic, does we consent? >From my point of view, the idea is to be sure we =E2=80=93 as a community = =E2=80=93 consent about significant changes. And if I =E2=80=93 as a deliberating member =E2=80=93 do not feel confident= enough, I have two options: (a) Disapprove, for instance because I estimate we have not discussed enough the topic at hand and the topic deserves more discussion or another counter proposal or (b) Silent (no reply), although it would mean to me something is wrong. On this, the danger is the =E2=80=9Csocial pressure=E2=80=9D because the De= liberation Period is public. But if it=E2=80=99s a real issue, improvement on that co= uld be part of an amendment for the next version. :-) Please keep in mind (1) the =E2=80=9Csocial pressure=E2=80=9D would mean it= =E2=80=99s not a safe place hence it would raise more than the potential RFC and (2) consent does not mean being 100% in agreement with all the details but it means =E2=80=9Cit=E2=80=99s a good direction, not perfect but I can live with the imperfections=E2=80=9D. Somehow. :-) > - 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. Ah. Hum. The idea of the process is: + author sends (*) + one or more people reply =E2=80=9CI support=E2=80=9D + it becomes a submitted RFC + all the dance=E2=80=A6 + Deliberation Period: (**) . I support . I approve . I disapprove Ah indeed (*) and (**) are not the same: 1. =E2=80=9CSupporter=E2=80=9D means (*) 2. Team members replying =E2=80=9CI support=E2=80=9D means (**) Thanks. Maybe (1)(*) should be renamed. > I'd suggest renaming the RFC state "Final" to "Accepted". I agree. > - 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. I agree. > - 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." If you do not see the RFC after the long Discussion Period of 60 days, then why do you see it in the short Deliberation Period? ;-) Somehow, we need to bound, else it becomes hard to move forward, IMHO. Well, I assume good faith, I would like to counter the behaviour: I sleep during all the discussion where people took the time to polish and end up with something all agree, and me, I awake up in the last minute and bang! That=E2=80=99s unfair, IMHO. It=E2=80=99s not explicitly mentioned (maybe it should be): I think that any =E2=80=9Csubmitted=E2=80=9D RFC must be advertised via info-guix@gnu.org. > - 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. I agree. I remember your suggestion at the last Guix Days. And I lost it among other stuff during the year 2024=E2=80=A6 Arf! > I'm not quite clear what this means, but: I support. :)=20 > > 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. Thank you. Ah what a pity to not see you in Brussels! Cheers, simon