all messages for Guix-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
To: "Simon Tournier" <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>,
	"Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>,
	74736@debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: "Noé Lopez" <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>, "Noé Lopez" <noelopez@free.fr>,
	"Christopher Baines" <mail@cbaines.net>
Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process.
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2025 17:45:01 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87sepnh4gy.fsf@wireframe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8734hqluu3.fsf@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4145 bytes --]

On 2025-01-10, Simon Tournier wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 at 16:40, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Is 'no one disagrees' == 'no one replies with "I disapprove"'? It would
>> be nicer if there were more explicit alignment in the words used to make
>> that clearer, if that is, in fact, the intended case. Perhaps
>> literally... e.g. ... (2) if no one declares "I disapprove".
>
> I hope it is clarified with v7 [1]:
>
>         The GCD is *accepted* if (1) at least 25% of all team members send a
>         reply, and (2) no one disapproves.  In other cases, the GCD is
>         *withdrawn*.
>
> WDYT?

Hah. Subtle but meaningful difference! Yes, I think that captures it.

> Maybe, « (2) if no one declares "I disapprove". » seems even clearer?

It does seem clearer, but the match between "I disapprove" and
disapproves is probably sufficient to address my concern.


>> Obviously, one can and should declare their reservations as part of the
>> discussion that lead up to that point! Although maybe "I accept" should
>> come with the option to declare formal outstanding concerns?
>
> Well, that’s the distinction between “I support” and “I accept”, no?

That is my understanding...

> Somehow, the idea with “I accept” is “I think it’s the good direction
> although I have these concerns X and Y but I can with live all that”.

It mashes together "good direction, with concerns" and "good enough
direction, with concerns" and "tolerable direction, with concerns".  It
may not be necessary having those so fine-grained, and being able to
reflect that as part of the concerns raised and noted.


> Well, I think these concerns are captured during the “Discussion Period”
> and they should be included in the section “Drawback” or “Open Issues”.

Sounds good to me, sure!


>> Similarly "I disaprove" should not come out of nowhere; it should be
>> clear why, and perhaps worth having an option to note that in the call
>> for consensus at the end of the Deliberation Period?
>
> I agree.  Does this wording v7 [1]:
>
>         - “I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the
>           proposal.  A team member sending this reply must have actively
>           cooperated with for discussing the RFC during the discussion period.
>           See “Decision Making”.
>
> answer to your comment?  In addition, “Decision Making” section
> contains:
>
>         Thus, no decision is made against significant concerns; these concerns
>         are actively resolved through counter proposals.  A deliberating member
>         disapproving a proposal bears a responsibility for finding alternatives,
>         proposing ideas or code, or explaining the rationale for the status quo.
>
> Therefore, “I disapprove” cannot come out of nowhere because the person
> who disapproves must comment during the “Discussion Period” on the why.
>
> That’s said, do you suggest that the reply “I disapprove” during the
> “Deliberating Period” should come with a summary about why?

I *think* so, even though it should have already been made clear through
earlier discussion that there was an issue... it may not always be
clear, especially with asyncronous communications, what each person
final stance is at the end of those prior discussions.


> And such summary would be then included in the Document with the state
> of ’widthdrawn’.

At least the major points of disapproval should be summarized succinctly
somewhere. I am not terribly particular about where. :)


>> I also wonder if there is a supermajority of "I accept" over "I support"
>> this maybe should raise some sort of red flag calling into question the
>> proposal... as that is a very weak consensus and perhaps cause for
>> concern.
>
> Good point.  Maybe this is the same as above about having these concerns
> written down in the final document under a dedicated section as
> “Drawback” or “Open Issues”.  WDYT?

Yeah, something along those lines.


live well,
  vagrant

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-13  1:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 73+ 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
2025-01-10 16:48                         ` Noé Lopez via Guix-patches via
2025-01-11  0:47                         ` Suhail Singh
2025-01-15 18:44                           ` 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
2025-01-13  1:45         ` Vagrant Cascadian [this message]
2025-01-15 18:58           ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10  7:44     ` Janneke Nieuwenhuizen
2025-01-10 12:45       ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10 13:17         ` Janneke Nieuwenhuizen
2025-01-15 19:12           ` Simon Tournier
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
2025-01-10 17:15   ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v8] Add Request-For-Comment process Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-15 22:40     ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-16  9:00       ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-16  9:50         ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-12 15:57 ` [bug#74736] Re v8 of " Hartmut Goebel
2025-01-13 21:17   ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] " Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-16 19:43     ` Hartmut Goebel
2025-01-16 20:41       ` Hartmut Goebel
2025-01-16 23:51         ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 23:50       ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 17:43   ` [bug#74736] Re v8 of " Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 19:50     ` Hartmut Goebel
2025-01-17  0:20       ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 17:55 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v9] Add Guix Consensus Document process Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 23:13   ` [bug#74736] Do you read it? (was: [bug#74736] [PATCH v9] Add Guix Consensus Document process) Simon Tournier
2025-01-17  0:43 ` [bug#74736] [PATCH v10] Add Guix Consensus Document process Simon Tournier
2025-01-17  0:53 ` 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=87sepnh4gy.fsf@wireframe \
    --to=vagrant@debian.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.