GNU bug report logs - #61894
[PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com>
Cc: guix-maintainers <at> gnu.org, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 61894 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>, Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>, guix-devel <at> gnu.org
Subject: [bug#61894] [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 21:33:13 -0500

Hi Felix,

Felix Lechner <felix.lechner <at> lease-up.com> writes:

> Hi Ludo',
>
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 9:22 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Like you I’m glad collaboration is nice and friendly; yet, over the past
>> few months I’ve experienced misunderstandings that seemingly broke the
>> consensus-based process that has always prevailed.
>
> I have no idea what happened there, but it may be best to be open and
> direct about it. Would it be helpful for everyone to share details?

It may help to shed a bit of light on the original reason I think this
change came into existence, and in the interest of transparency and
hopefully improving or finding alternatives to the proposed change, I
consent to Ludovic openly discussing it, even if it involves a healthy
dose of critique and looking inward.

> Although you know that already, it would be best to avoid accusations
> and look inward with statements like "I was unhappy about ... because
> of ...." I might also avoid the word "you" and instead address all
> messages to a third party.

[...]

> Also, why not retitle the bug as "Restore and improve our
> consensus-based process"?

I think this captures well what one of the issues I see with this
change: it seems to be an attempt to resolve a local conflict (?) by
apply a new global policy (which could be OK if the problem was
widespread, but I doubt it is?), making everyone pay for it (via added
bureaucracy).

I've also pointed that if this is what it's trying to fix, it won't
really help, since policy is not a substitute to consensus, and we're
the same pool of people who will need to get along, whether as
committers or as members of the same team.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.