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 KO+4L6x+cmczhAAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:06:20 +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 KO+4L6x+cmczhAAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:06:20 +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=jCjVdv04; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=FzGjsAk0; 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=1735556780; 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=x1n8Kv3ge4siolZRWMsryeW8fnhWn/pv5k1r0OHvlfI=; b=p7bJd9sAwjmLFhEZHNL6jX5Dsk5TxEvqs1NA0g4cKwiylBPOpp6eQbS03fYj0VEyoLQ1xY DHBdAq5g30lIUnIIyCeixEMNu7bVWhB+UY6J32begDTneIaF3XV+qK6lDX8YlAmznDIr2R ub/MnJ1tvk3X5gzMQ5K09KdQEYpOGsGJzyTvGxnWpzMYmrNhlQe+grItXvUd2gToJjr5LP Kcx2AlbM4CE2zfRNHw5awE0INKnMHbYBNTyKO4Bqy7nfwgWImkfxk6mGKyCBWfb8gXtK3+ wMze4um8Iug09911pBB9jvvNOJeav49wYEw3WNRkOAejruZ1C/M8EP3FIR4uqA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=jCjVdv04; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b=FzGjsAk0; 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=1735556780; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=WpKO1hroGqedoSuvA4L2yFzCJa5au33JpMJnFd6INiBtE1SjNhcOIB5CZEYrOcnrG0fGvf IkHo+Q/wNPemXjMouLfnrp03mXBcUT0PLGXM6xSsMjZD5E8iKPIJv1W2wplxv5KkUt/6wR GL7CqOTmIn/2EdzHA4KtTdjUq4v5+rHCMIUmtpbji36l1F9s6Gwg2NI+RtcOpVWqepP1Gp y77fV6fBxz5PrdQ/1+dLoeTIJNCZKV+PF4rquPA3uMZfbWlKzmwFc55VDPwxKo6nON0MgI 11N6XdduFickKxGjUj4Rhfv0SgjPtM/KhcHOnsZTGyeDnHFCrTHZaHKV4ltktA== 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 333E792B76 for ; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:06:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tSDb3-0006SQ-6D; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:06:05 -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 1tSDb0-0006S6-G3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:06:02 -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 1tSDb0-0003SH-6Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:06:02 -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=x1n8Kv3ge4siolZRWMsryeW8fnhWn/pv5k1r0OHvlfI=; b=jCjVdv04lMhBfiw2nxhyVhtUopfhv+VmM9SQso2L568OY2h+/zgpwxeW5VlRBUws+Wzr8m+Ctbd/vDoyk+72w61Knd8LK/5I2kGAGGW5c19+r9/GP5hgD68obVRuJdjCC8/9wdBiE9zC2ciE/v/RABrZEjOAoEiZw+O9KXsT3uZ33rnf5PP1mEQY3OUWYt4MK/8Hr+1Uq/LwKYAf3q2b2XLZiCvlBwUf3f5U/c/ZgvdtyOAo2FwOlzMqGWo2obPOcTiJgY5EymhfKFAskkEmbUTJXhxU7SlTlwJo4JVzn18Udn280i3igKOwvjzxm6x5fD8Nlf/mjfiM5FI1tuYtmg==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSDaz-0002fa-Vv for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:06:02 -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: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:06:01 +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: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez Cc: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173555675310246 (code B ref 74736); Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:06:01 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2024 11:05:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57498 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSDar-0002fB-Cy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:05:53 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44986) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tSDao-0002ew-FF for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:05:51 -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 1tSDYa-00039a-Tl; Mon, 30 Dec 2024 06:03:32 -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=x1n8Kv3ge4siolZRWMsryeW8fnhWn/pv5k1r0OHvlfI=; b=FzGjsAk0NTI4GCUUZklQ N8eudAi8onh0HtTuzEDMxvaIJ26YzfYm7oFUCn7MvzX3M/JGtymZ4t/xg31o7sfjy/mYqAmESC4Tv ZzaQyh+ydYWA9A5SKxw36mpjLvJ4VZq9YQ2LvacSBuuijtY+psCLhPJ8I7vwSe9Qw2GLPISQdiEoR JlkIBqNekMIQNCrBvy2gGT0TxglVliQEVfu3VnzOgyEo68+Xf5sG2JahGHv452Lj+CkHIKkTjsBHC tfW2XuMHpQBWDVWNs8BBed1422HaN2L6Rbdky4GkT/9i9W7NxQOSR6/Qb3loIhQg5BxfSakPbS5lE k1SaUl1XTsd2pQ==; From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= In-Reply-To: <87wmfifii5.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> ("=?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez"'s message of "Sun, 29 Dec 2024 19:31:46 +0100") References: <87ikraea0f.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87wmfifii5.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:03:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87seq5tou6.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: -7.20 X-Spam-Score: -7.20 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 333E792B76 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx10.migadu.com X-TUID: CHEjSrFzFlNd Hi No=C3=A9, No=C3=A9 Lopez skribis: >> It seems unchanged compared to v3. WDYT of my comments, suggestions, .> and proposed wording: >> >> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#9 >> >> ? > > As Simon said, I think a vote goes against the principle of > consensus. OK. As I wrote in my reply to Simon, my thought here was that =E2=80=9Cvot= ing=E2=80=9D* would give a clear and unambiguous way, not subject to interpretation, to decide whether the RFC is withdrawn: it=E2=80=99s easier to add numbers = than to determine whether =E2=80=9Ca positive consensus is reached=E2=80=9D (cur= rent wording). But I don=E2=80=99t know, I guess that=E2=80=99s an =E2=80=9CI will live wi= th it=E2=80=9D from me on this one. :-) Two other issue I raised was the quorum: Simon proposed half of the committers; I propose 25% of team members. Thoughts? * Maybe =E2=80=9Cvoting=E2=80=9D is misleading; =E2=80=9Cdeliberation=E2=80= =9D might be clearer. >> 2. on the submission -> withdrawn transition, in case nobody supports >> the RFC. [...] > I agree with that timeline, but I would have just =E2=80=9Cforgotten=E2= =80=9D an RFC > that doesn=E2=80=99t pass the submission period, since that would mean it= is not > good enough to be discussed. It can just be kept in the mail archives > like any other unfinished idea. > > A withdrawn RFC would mean keeping it in the rfc/withdrawn directory. Oh right, forgotten/dismissed seems more appropriate than withdrawn here. Anyway, I think we should aim for finalization of v1 of the RFC process by, say, Jan. 15th. I will dedicate some time to tweak the wording, and then we can call it a thing. (A bit sad that it=E2=80=99s just the three of us talking, we wouldn=E2=80= =99t have the quorum here=E2=80=A6) Ludo=E2=80=99.