all messages for Guix-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>
To: Arun Isaac <arunisaac@systemreboot.net>
Cc: zimon.toutoune@gmail.com, efraim@flashner.co.il,
	guix-devel@gnu.org, guix-maintainers@gnu.org, ludo@gnu.org,
	mail@cbaines.net, rekado@elephly.net, 74736@debbugs.gnu.org,
	Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:34:30 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z4fVhpXCDeYXPzUE@jurong> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87tta4nk21.fsf@systemreboot.net>

Hello all,

thank you for moving this forward! May I suggest to keep guix-devel
posted when sending comments to the bug?

I like Arun's suggestion of having a separate mailing list for
discussing these important changes (GCD? Greatest common divisors!)
in the future instead of guix-devel.

Janneke, I think another motivation for such a process is to make sure
that some decision is actually reached in the end, instead of letting
discussions taper out. I feel that this tends to happen in Guix and Guix
Foundation.

Concerning consensus, I am mildly worried about deadlocks (including 
when trying to modify this RFC/GCD). What happens if some person insists
on disapproving? (I am reminded of the European Union where one member
state can effectively hold the others hostage over certain issues.)
The RFC/GCD says: "A team member sending this reply should have made
constructive comments during the discussion period." What if they have
not? How about adding a quorum of "disapprove" votes to have effect?
(Actually in Europe *two* member states are needed for a veto in the
Council.)

Notice also that the suggestion bootstraps the team members into a
decision taking body - so far we have added people more or less randomly
to teams. For instance, team members need not have commit rights and
thus be vetted by three fellow committers. So should we replace "team
members" by "committers"? Or keep the proposal as is and immediately
work on a new GCD to somehow safeguard the addition of people to a team?

Andreas



  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-15 15:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-31 11:14 Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation Simon Tournier
2023-11-16 15:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-11-20  9:42   ` Simon Tournier
2023-11-22 18:17     ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-11-23  7:04 ` Efraim Flashner
2023-11-28 13:34   ` Simon Tournier
2023-12-19 12:33 ` Simon Tournier
2023-12-20 11:49   ` Ricardo Wurmus
2024-02-03 10:09     ` Simon Tournier
2024-02-03 10:34 ` [post Guix Days] Guix Common Document (was: Request-For-Comment process) Simon Tournier
2024-02-07  8:27   ` Efraim Flashner
2025-01-03 18:38 ` Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5) Simon Tournier
2025-01-07 10:40   ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-08 15:15     ` Suhail Singh
2025-01-09 17:33     ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-09 23:49       ` bokr
2025-01-10  6:26       ` Suhail Singh
2025-01-15 18:42         ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-10  0:07     ` Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC) Simon Tournier
2025-01-12 15:11       ` Arun Isaac
2025-01-15 15:34         ` Andreas Enge [this message]
2025-01-15 21:50           ` Guix Common Document process (v7) indieterminacy
2025-01-15 22:32           ` Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC) Simon Tournier
2025-01-15 22:32             ` [bug#74736] " Simon Tournier
2025-01-15 23:28             ` Vagrant Cascadian
2025-01-16  9:23               ` [bug#74736] " Andreas Enge
2025-01-16 12:04             ` Guix Common Document process (v7) Suhail Singh
2025-01-16 16:10           ` bug#74736: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-16 18:01             ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-17  9:37               ` Ludovic Courtès
2025-01-15 19:18         ` Guix Common Document process (v7) (was: Request-For-Comment, RFC) Simon Tournier
2025-01-16 13:21           ` Arun Isaac
2025-01-14 18:28       ` bokr
2025-01-15 19:22         ` Simon Tournier
2025-01-17  1:06 ` Guix Consensus Document process (v10) Simon Tournier
2025-01-19 21:52   ` Ludovic Courtès

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=Z4fVhpXCDeYXPzUE@jurong \
    --to=andreas@enge.fr \
    --cc=74736@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=arunisaac@systemreboot.net \
    --cc=efraim@flashner.co.il \
    --cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
    --cc=guix-maintainers@gnu.org \
    --cc=janneke@gnu.org \
    --cc=ludo@gnu.org \
    --cc=mail@cbaines.net \
    --cc=rekado@elephly.net \
    --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.