Subject: Re: bug#74736: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.

From: Suhail Singh <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 10:12:42 -0500

Noé Lopez <[email-masked]> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]> writes:
> ...
>> id: 000
>
> 001, since the template takes id 0000 for ease of access.

Agreed.

>> supporters: ?

I'd like to be a supporter.  I suppose the authors get to determine
whether I am "sufficiently familiar", or is it based on self-reporting?
Perhaps this point should be clarified.

>> submitted: 2024-12-12
>> date: 2025-01-15

Should other dates such as target discussion period end as well as
target deliberation period end also be noted here?

> It’s a good place to add:
> SPDX-License-Identifier: CC-BY-SA-4.0 OR GFDL-1.3-no-invariants-only

Agreed.

>> A change may be deemed “significant” when it could only be reverted at a
>> high cost or, for technical changes, when it has the potential to
>> disrupt user scripts and programs or user workflows.  Examples include:

Stating these properties is helpful.

>> ## When to Follow This Process

Perhaps a "vs not" or equivalent could be added to the heading?

>> Most day-to-day contributions do *not* require an RFC; examples include:

I am glad that non-examples were also noted.

>> 1. Clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix/requests-for-comments.git .
>
> Why the alone dot?

I imagine so as not to be mistaken as being part of the URL.  If so, I
would recommend we use < ... > delimiters here and elsewhere.  E.g.,

>> 1. Clone <https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix/requests-for-comments.git>.

> So we are now three authors and no supporters for this RFC?  Could we
> say that more than one author also works for submitting?

I think a clarification on this point is needed.  As well, when there
are multiple authors if one or more of them could also act as
supporters.

>> Supporters help the author(s) by participating in discussions, amending
>> the document as it is being discussed, and acting as timekeepers.

The "amending the document" responsibility blurs the distinction between
authors and supporters.  Could that be replaced with "providing
constructive comments"?  E.g., this message of mine.

>> The RFC is *accepted* if (1) at least 25% of all team members send a
>> reply, and (2) no one disagrees.  In other cases, the RFC is
>> *withdrawn*.

At that point someone (or some bot) performing cleanup tasks is welcome
to close the issue, if not already closed?

>> https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus .
>
> Another alone dot 🤔

I propose "<...>." as noted above.

>> All the RFCs are dual-licensed under the [Creative Commons
>> Attribution-ShareAlike
>> 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) license and the
>> [GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, with no Invariant Sections, no
>> Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
>> Texts](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html).
>
> I would add “or (at your option) any later version.”

Agreed.

>> The expected structure of RFCs is captured by the template in the file
>> `0000-template.md`, written in English with Markdown ornaments.
>
> Ornament is a complicated word, I would replace it with “syntax”.

Agreed.

>> ## Cost of Reverting
>>
>> The RFC process described in this documented can be amended by
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
>> subsequent RFCs.

I propose:

#+begin_quote
  The RFC process described in this document can be amended and must be
  by via a subsequent RFC.
#+end_quote

-- 
Suhail