From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id 0LlXMroaaGcv1QAA62LTzQ:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:57:14 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e16b::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1.migadu.com with LMTPS id 0LlXMroaaGcv1QAA62LTzQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:57:14 +0100 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=qGyVOMc6; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="O 3yBlyR"; 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=1734875834; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to: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=2lAvEAjG8i7JB3wUO48vzZ6BfH1VovmLcpjuqHkucWI=; b=ibhNPdPEDoQi5ARmyO1dGs7+6nEJ3fWneBB6/SfOc7F798dZ5ujEq/fAJs1/eAesy0gvCl abXkfaNtqgpXdv2PMufZy6gdM8Rl6vFf8+Q3ApWUdijCI0P2sw/c3CHjiZueXv7J/lkRd2 ovrn5nmfxuJW0gTODI3AhOts15pWx/YKPkXNqjNrhQaeNNZ/roEAs5DE2I2X2WFBsAVcNN +WqBTWnhjJFtfACZmPRTH8U/kJwSsIn29rnmlwr6xCa4Oc4es1X6jQylvM61y8OqgTu9Jr bB4MVXrS+9jHAi46OXlkpI4Vg02f2XE+spKk91xf/yocuqOxOX3qiJc3j2UjJQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=debbugs.gnu.org header.s=debbugs-gnu-org header.b=qGyVOMc6; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=xn--no-cja.eu header.s=ds202402 header.b="O 3yBlyR"; 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=1734875834; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=mmsh7E2LtrsGvfbDUHUQ4W4D87VCnBOHl+FQTEzGk+aiJb9feSIRnXostL45zU4/RkPlYc O6iMshDI5y6tmiaWm+38aseWEDbT14TVlmBNpbQEX0DWfXzkNMt0MstfLd6SMWSPUnZW3u zb5CuGsxhJCDID1cwQOVIB2JMKFFmrsk0JZx8om6gUk2mWXx9iDKm8KZcwUxv1a/V9CQCw DtKJ2rL3Y6ktoDKcmNNPbW1+ZPBdID30gXweZQtuDD2FCFcctg1yF9YkiqLa5emCADL5Xq MDqwzAyieHcUXXWncxjlNUi7dph7RwMHwshrIjx4kkffX1tTpsbRAi2obX1xYQ== 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 44E9F58CDD for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:57:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tPMSC-0001bY-1w; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:57:08 -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 1tPMS7-0001bD-6i for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:57:04 -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 1tPMS6-0001og-U7; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:57:02 -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:References:In-Reply-To:Date:From:To:Subject; bh=2lAvEAjG8i7JB3wUO48vzZ6BfH1VovmLcpjuqHkucWI=; b=qGyVOMc6ovw6rkbxkWS62Yi96zWSA+mVMlGEpnfyobL3YT2QgLRU1Tz8E21nGqj9v5b30KWqWgnHoBGX8mmfVLPbYYDtbiVpscVzociM5iMcJLNU+Xm+5A7e5TkybkjsMGBhCN4wOshdHmmdhH8H7YC9nquEWaw2rs9ipc4e11jG10LRFrTTW/ioQ+aSfyOWoChCwMYyV3AW7+1Dq6WgBtRqrh4GFon/Rlf1dCCy/BnwaB3vfnWS60DCb6fh1gjwORm8bzXz7mOVogbj/9e9BbB2snXOBB0/ObX2ZEya8D8NFjL6usgmEmD59revbpgsalJGETknC2HdLBQGq3I7QQ==; Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tPMS6-0005Zl-Fg; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:57:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v4 1/1] rfc: Add Request-For-Comment process. Resent-From: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: zimon.toutoune@gmail.com, ludo@gnu.org, guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:57:02 +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: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez , Simon Tournier , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= X-Debbugs-Original-Xcc: Simon Tournier , Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Received: via spool by 74736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B74736.173487576821350 (code B ref 74736); Sun, 22 Dec 2024 13:57:02 +0000 Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Dec 2024 13:56:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49441 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tPMRC-0005YG-AG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:56:07 -0500 Received: from smtp.domeneshop.no ([194.63.252.55]:34631) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1tPMR9-0005Xi-4W for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 08:56:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xn--no-cja.eu; s=ds202402; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:From: Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post: List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=2lAvEAjG8i7JB3wUO48vzZ6BfH1VovmLcpjuqHkucWI=; b=O 3yBlyRIYFX2ab02xwdOtc5Ibwcp6uPlf4w/hO36DO1wFA6WZZMNyO0o3aFYzsQWoayIUX9M6t6lpc nnl4zr8Dka+GA9jA+wMqy/wpWPEtTHfb7PUf0HDB60jwA5oig497i7bOkEMYDyxGKpue7wjaTqmIC Bgy2PXgRVCOETw6Df8p7UsvDrS5ETvNWV9o0Ewfpu+dQBoCG/dAbXQ3xj1iOmp2nNAB7C92Gydw1N NeXTEVj6gpmCim5ALValJUnR90+aH+ymIdwx+wlX1YeTkEwCDBdyLoO3vM3UQm+8uc2eUshgfPVHI p32KSCJ4cy2FCBQniyqyQA7I+Eo2ijfCA==; Received: from smtp by smtp.domeneshop.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) id 1tPMR3-00DUSN-FQ; Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:55:57 +0100 Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 14:56:56 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: , Reply-to: =?UTF-8?Q?No=C3=A9?= Lopez X-ACL-Warn: , =?utf-8?q?No=C3=A9_Lopez_via_Guix-patches?= From: =?utf-8?q?No=C3=A9_Lopez_via_Guix-patches?= via 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-Queue-Id: 44E9F58CDD X-Migadu-Scanner: mx13.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 0.40 X-Spam-Score: 0.40 X-TUID: MVqF0PG4BOBR From: Simon Tournier * rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt: New file. Co-authored-by: Noé Lopez Change-Id: Ide88e70dc785ab954ccb42fb043625db12191208 --- rfc/0001-rfc-process.md | 254 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 254 insertions(+) create mode 100644 rfc/0001-rfc-process.md diff --git a/rfc/0001-rfc-process.md b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..7db420c824 --- /dev/null +++ b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.md @@ -0,0 +1,254 @@ +- Issue: 66844 +- Status: pending +- Supporter: Simon Tournier +- Co-supporters: Noé Lopez + +# Summary + +The “RFC” (request for comments) process is intended to provide a +consistent and structured path for major changes and features to enter +the Guix project, so that all stakeholders can make decisions +collectively and be confident about the direction it is evolving in. + +# Motivation + +The current way that we add new features to Guix has been good for early +development, but it is starting to show its limits as Guix becomes a +broadly used system with many contributors. Changes might be slowed down +by the lack of structure to acquire consensus, lack of a central place +to consult contributors and users, and lack of clear deadlines. This is +a proposal for a more principled RFC process to make it a more integral +part of the overall development process, and one that is followed +consistently to introduce substantial features. + +There are a number of changes that are significant enough that they +could benefit from wider community consensus before being introduced. +Either because they introduce new concepts, big changes or are +controversial enough that not everybody will consent on the direction to +take. + +Therefore, the purpose of this RFC is to introduce a process that allows +to bring the discussion upfront and strengthen decisions. This RFC is +used to bootstrap the process and further RFCs can be used to refine the +process. + +It covers significant changes, where “significant” means any change that +could only be reverted at a high cost, or any change with the potential +to disrupt user scripts and programs or user workflows. Examples +include: + +- changing the \ record type and/or its interfaces; +- adding or removing a 'guix' sub-command; +- changing the channel mechanism; +- changing project policy such as teams, decision-making, the + deprecation policy or this very document; +- changing the contributor workflow and related infrastructure + (mailing lists, source code repository and forge, continuous + integration, etc.) + +For concrete past examples where this RFC process would be helpful: + +- Removing input labels from package definitions, #49169 +- Add \'guix shell\' to subsume \'guix environment\', #50960 +- Trustable \"guix pull\", #22883 +- Add \"Deprecation Policy\", #72840 +- Collaboration via team and branch-features, several places over all + the mailing lists. + +# Detailed design + +## When to follow this process + +This process is followed when one intends to make “substantial” +changes to the Guix project. What constitutes a “substantial” change +is evolving based on community norms, but may include the following. + +- Changes that modify user-facing interfaces that may be relied on + - Command-line interfaces + - Core Scheme interfaces +- Big restructuring of packages +- Hard to revert changes +- Governance and changes to the way we collaborate + +Certain changes do not require an RFC: + +- Adding, updating packages, removing outdated packages +- Fixing security updates and bugs that don’t break interfaces + +For general day-to-day contributions, please follow the regular process +as described by manual sections “Submitting Patches”, “Reviewing the +Work of Others”, “Teams” and “Making Decisions”. + +A patch submission that contains any of the aforementioned substantial +changes may be asked to first submit a RFC. + +## How the process works + +1. Clone +2. Copy rfc/0000-template.org to rfc/00XY-good-name.org where good-name + is descriptive but not too long and XY increments +3. Fill RFC +4. Submit to guix-patches@gnu.org +5. Announce your RFC to guix-devel@gnu.org + +Make sure the proposal is as well-written as you would expect the final +version of it to be. It does not mean that all the subtilities must be +considered at this point since that is the aim of review discussion. It +means that the RFC process is not a prospective brainstorming and the +proposal formalize an idea for making it happen. + +The submission of a proposal does not require an implementation. +However, to improve the chance of a successful RFC, it is recommended to +have an idea for implementing it. If an implementation is attached to +the detailed design, it might help the discussion. + +At this point, at least one other person must volunteer to be +“co-supporter”. The aim is to improve the chances that the RFC is both +desired and likely to be implemented. + +Once supporter and co-supporter(s) are committed in the RFC process, the +review discussion starts. Publicizing of the RFC on the project’s +mailing list named guix-devel is mandatory, and on other main +communication channels is highly recommended. + +After a number of rounds of review, the discussion should settle and a +general consensus should emerge. Please follow the “Decision Process” +and “Timeline” sections. + +A successful RFC is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not +mean the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in +principle all the participants have agreed to the feature and are +amenable to merging it. + +An unsuccessful RFC is **not** a judgment on the value of the work, so a +refusal should rather be interpreted as “let's discuss again with a +different angle”. The last state of an unsuccessful RFC is archived +under the directory rfc/withdrawn/. + +## Co-supporter + +A co-supporter is a contributor sufficiently familiar with the project's +practices, hence it is recommended, but not mandatory, to be a +contributor with commit access. The co-supporter helps the supporter, +they are both charged with keeping the proposal moving through the +process. The co-supporter role is to help the proposal supporter by +being the timekeeper and helps in pushing forward until process +completion. + +The co-supporter doesn’t necessarily have to agree with all the points +of the RFC but should generally be satisfied that the proposed additions +are a good thing for the community. + +## Timeline + +The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended +periods: + +submission (7d) ⟶ comments (30--60d) ⟶ last call (14d) ⟶ withdrawn OR +final + +The author may withdraw their RFC proposal at any time; and it might be +submitted again. + +### Submission (up to 7 days) + +The author submits their RFC proposal as a regular patch and look for +co-supporter(s). See “Co-supporter” section. + +Once the RFC is co-supported, it marks the start of a discussion period. + +### Comment (at least 30 days, up to 60 days) + +The comment period starts once the author publishes their RFC to +guix-devel, then the proposal is freely discussed for a period of at +least 30 days. It is up to the supporter and co-supporter(s) to ensure +that sufficient discussion is solicited. Please make sure that all have +the time and space for expressing their comments. The proposal is about +significant changes, thus more opinions is better than less. + +The author is encouraged to publish updated versions of their RFC at any +point during the discussion period. + +Once the discussion goes stale or after 60 days, the author must +summarize the state of the conversation and keep the final version. + +It moves to the last call period. + +### Last call (up to 14 days) + +The author publishes a final version of the RFC and a last grace period +of 14 days is granted. People are asked to agree or disagree by +commenting: + +- +1 / LGTM: I support +- =0 / LGTM: I will live with it +- -1: I disagree with this proposal + +At least half of people with commit access must express their voice with +the keys above during this last call. We need to be sure that the RFC +had been read by people committed to take care of the project, since it +proposes an important change. + +When a positive consensus is reached, the RFC becomes effective. If not, +the proposal is archived and the status quo continues. + +## Decision making: consensus + +It is expected from all contributors, and even more so from committers, +to help build consensus and make decisions based on consensus. By using +consensus, we are committed to finding solutions that everyone can live +with. + +It implies that no decision is made against significant concerns and +these concerns are actively resolved with proposals that work for +everyone. A contributor, without or with commit access, wishing to block +a proposal bears a special responsibility for finding alternatives, +proposing ideas/code or explaining the rationale for the status quo. + +To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer +details, you are encouraged to read +. + +## Merging the outcome + +Once a consesus is made, a committer should do the following to merge +the RFC: + +1. Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links + for the original submission. +2. Commit everything. +3. Announce the establishment of the RFC to all. + +## Template of RFC + +The structure of the RFC is captured by the template; see the file +rfc/0000-template.txt. Please use Markdown as markup language. + +## Backward compatibility + +None. + +## Forward compatibility + +The RFC process can be refined by further RFCs. + +## Drawbacks + +There is a risk that the additional process will hinder contribution +more than it would help. We should stay alert that the process is only a +way to help contribution, not an end in itself. + +Of course, group decision-making processes are difficult to manage. + +The ease of commenting may bring a slightly diminished signal-to-noise +ratio in collected feedback, particularly on easily bike-shedded topics. + +## Open questions + +There are still questions regarding the desired scope of the process. +While we want to ensure that changes which affect the users are +well-considered, we certainly don’t want the process to become unduly +burdensome. This is a careful balance which will require care to +maintain moving forward. + +# Unresolved questions -- 2.46.0