From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id uCtCAvFveWfS+QAAe85BDQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 17:29:21 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2.migadu.com with LMTPS id uCtCAvFveWfS+QAAe85BDQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 18:29:21 +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=PNK4+pxd; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b="p0mk/wZT"; 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=1736011760; 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=TmVJ586Xv0Wd6Irrz8tGzxTKgj+FbdEFx6QfH+xcyLU=; b=esJyLh4+X4NhXIwL9Rk6871TEnNOdDkQwvMNfvlOq1/s8PTYd1uMO7O0aK+7YGhf7ynQzT VV1vGKUjzmyO6n38M86Fbfq2X9e1K4Ffe/J9HPdeswpvkpJw4oZqB6X5ZfGTuhfyRNxuad fnMHCTJFseoteAQ9xi2csGs6/bldWRGY71OvkyPcRXy1PCGgRCDpOwSReL4ILgvBMV4lvb Ie8k/QTJPvxCRPMGr+15fyxpBtj9r9smWxyN8zLyg1U5N9JxU/GPflU49azvpucvn6cpc5 6yKMok5QfEVchgHpDb7dQH/nrzv64Fjuwm7UCWYGpNcWthHh38naftQOsN+3Uw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=PNK4+pxd; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gnu.org header.s=fencepost-gnu-org header.b="p0mk/wZT"; 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=1736011760; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=uIjy1EO9Fvgb0HBDyyMsSqlF08rTyzb8vvdsGW6Nv9HLpLRjiAZWyaF1NG8sWMIjSvDD3H d47jWJfVI8EL6yJCt4mBOjPBr+JU50logn6n8zPnTY7yPYJOTWWo9vUWBQqJrB4vQSXAe/ 58OyQ8W9WMackj3gF3+KKhj9zpb+91B13c+ajH0hO9Ny1UjNUGRdd3IHau40h9G8LrII1z 075w3YK2glIcl2aapYNvCLi+f2OqWLqlVBgJcO5dhQBqw/NDN4F/+PBwJTuymI+XKkQYOC qe7gjj6u2CfJHBc2aVsWedNokXdNEB2gLN6L7rBjxXOm9HqG9DkUbj/nmtZ0+Q== 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 6C42219116 for ; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 18:29:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tU7xS-0002Au-N5; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:29:07 -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 1tU7xP-0002AX-4s for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:29:03 -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 1tU7xO-0000d1-Sp for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:29:02 -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=TmVJ586Xv0Wd6Irrz8tGzxTKgj+FbdEFx6QfH+xcyLU=; b=PNK4+pxdBguS97iKfg9e/mbC6kMBYSE8Gjy5P6sI86LsRN3uPYFpWy9A+ON3LQgEE3V7fPSIQLT7qfeD64TkI6DpwXJ/3IhvIpshSU+1Ra1SgiHoaV46K4Y75YT4LmkGPLMsuK/g0R4/a/49tnVVrV6izGpfLqS5xbmaBoBDGx/hV5ZqiiUD7OSYlV+3qzaVcwxPTHpMiac/y2+pN07YTIRb3dihKAL3PRoX8V47IHp7gOmjTRIfWZp7tJd+vxn/YxqhtywjWC1c5xb9E2y56dK7184PXjgTkQCAIfOS6wcI7F5yTWDqWjIiCWK6X/P6KK8ZqhAOHugiysP7sONGGw==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tU7xO-0003Nf-70 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:29:02 -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: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 17:29:02 +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=B74736.173601172812975 (code B ref 74736); Sat, 04 Jan 2025 17:29:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Jan 2025 17:28:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57072 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tU7xA-0003NC-7Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:28:48 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49690) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tU7x1-0003Mp-4g for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:28:45 -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 1tU7ws-0000Xe-UE; Sat, 04 Jan 2025 12:28:30 -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=TmVJ586Xv0Wd6Irrz8tGzxTKgj+FbdEFx6QfH+xcyLU=; b=p0mk/wZT/bvH76BOd50G 0N0KZNCU/EqFutfyL/nONgzkiUNRl5vIcsCj4EpyFvKoXTdClLXrnYXfLIoXREmwzei6o+fvH+VGl Wry89Q6/24SFhNv8Y3kTMW/nlaW3HCntD/9nbLicnvfMuzKD5s0uP5ECApFyeLiSOMiywx+khyMYd FchNSFry6rf6GoCLGq9ZABOPGssZ3IgUUkfcNTFpSYPJwnDzJTIIBX4UzXTUH0u6TuRhhKKHsyeia Y1eIGP/Jc4awVGGqeiYyWv+ozF31qnfHXWgcM9B36u7oIWKIn0BsgMV5tGB0NIelVvysU4CMsEI7q 38a1C2pOoj1lJw==; From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= In-Reply-To: <875xn14c21.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> ("=?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez"'s message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:58:46 +0100") References: <87ikraea0f.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87wmfifii5.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> <87seq5tou6.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <875xn14c21.fsf@xn--no-cja.eu> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: Quintidi 15 =?UTF-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 233 de la =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution,?= jour du Lapin X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x090B11993D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 18:28:05 +0100 Message-ID: <87ttaeqyje.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-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.40 X-Spam-Score: -2.40 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 6C42219116 X-TUID: tdZnOIJGN1mz No=C3=A9 Lopez skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: > >> OK. As I wrote in my reply to Simon, my thought here was that =E2=80=9C= voting=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 numbe= rs than >> to determine whether =E2=80=9Ca positive consensus is reached=E2=80=9D (= current >> wording). >> > > This is why an ACK/NACK system works great in my opinion: you send =E2=80= =9CACK=E2=80=9D > or =E2=80=9CNACK=E2=80=9D litteraly so your opinion is clear. And you ca= n just count > the number of each, without implying a vote. OK, got it, we agree on this. >> But I don=E2=80=99t know, I guess that=E2=80=99s an =E2=80=9CI will live= with 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? [...] > Half of the committers is 25 people (based on .guix-authorizations), and > a quarter of the team members is 10. Personnally, I have trouble > imagining that this amount of people will come to send a mail to the > RFC. So are you saying you=E2=80=99d want no quorum at all? (Your revision still reads =E2=80=9C50% committers=E2=80=9D.) >> 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. >> > > Good idea! I=E2=80=99ll be waiting for your v5 then. And then I can bri= ng > back the RFC template. OK, will do in the coming days. >> (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) >> > > Agreed. > > Lastly, do we want to move the RFCs to a separate git repository? I think so. I=E2=80=99ll ask for it on Savannah. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.