GNU bug report logs - #66430
[PATCH] doc: Mention the responsibilities that blocking comes with.

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 02:03:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 66430 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#66430] [PATCH] doc: Mention the responsibilities that blocking comes with.
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 23:10:13 +0200
Hi!

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> * doc/contributing.texi (Commit Access): Mention that blocking comes with
> extra responsibilities.
>
> Change-Id: I27cafcb351f68057b7882198e72e9bf66ccc1262

(Oh, what does this line mean?)

> +@url{https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus}.  The project uses the
> +@samp{Requiring people who block to help find solutions} block variant,
> +which means a participant wishing to block a proposal bears a
> +special responsibility for finding alternatives and proposing ideas/code
> +to resolve the deadlock.

I’m unsure about this.  A situation I have in mind is this: a volunteer
writes a review describing issues with a proposed change that have no
obvious solution, or rejecting the change altogether (for instance
because it’s deemed outside the scope of the project or tool).

How would one interpret the reviewer’s responsibility in this case?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

PS: We really need a process for changes to our collective rules.




This bug report was last modified 1 year and 187 days ago.

Previous Next


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