Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process.

From: Simon Tournier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 13:25:08 +0100

Hi,

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 at 16:40, Vagrant Cascadian <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Is 'no one disagrees' == 'no one replies with "I disapprove"'? It would
> be nicer if there were more explicit alignment in the words used to make
> that clearer, if that is, in fact, the intended case. Perhaps
> literally... e.g. ... (2) if no one declares "I disapprove".

I hope it is clarified with v7 [1]:

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        *withdrawn*.

WDYT?

Maybe, « (2) if no one declares "I disapprove". » seems even clearer?

> Obviously, one can and should declare their reservations as part of the
> discussion that lead up to that point! Although maybe "I accept" should
> come with the option to declare formal outstanding concerns?

Well, that’s the distinction between “I support” and “I accept”, no?

Somehow, the idea with “I accept” is “I think it’s the good direction
although I have these concerns X and Y but I can with live all that”.

Well, I think these concerns are captured during the “Discussion Period”
and they should be included in the section “Drawback” or “Open Issues”.

WDYT?

> Similarly "I disaprove" should not come out of nowhere; it should be
> clear why, and perhaps worth having an option to note that in the call
> for consensus at the end of the Deliberation Period?

I agree.  Does this wording v7 [1]:

        - “I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the
          proposal.  A team member sending this reply must have actively
          cooperated with for discussing the RFC during the discussion period.
          See “Decision Making”.

answer to your comment?  In addition, “Decision Making” section
contains:

        Thus, no decision is made against significant concerns; these concerns
        are actively resolved through counter proposals.  A deliberating member
        disapproving a proposal bears a responsibility for finding alternatives,
        proposing ideas or code, or explaining the rationale for the status quo.

Therefore, “I disapprove” cannot come out of nowhere because the person
who disapproves must comment during the “Discussion Period” on the why.

That’s said, do you suggest that the reply “I disapprove” during the
“Deliberating Period” should come with a summary about why?

And such summary would be then included in the Document with the state
of ’widthdrawn’.

> I also wonder if there is a supermajority of "I accept" over "I support"
> this maybe should raise some sort of red flag calling into question the
> proposal... as that is a very weak consensus and perhaps cause for
> concern.

Good point.  Maybe this is the same as above about having these concerns
written down in the final document under a dedicated section as
“Drawback” or “Open Issues”.  WDYT?

> All that said, I am a latecomer to this process... so take it however is
> most helpful! Overall, it looks quite good to my eyes.

Thank you for your comments.

Cheers,
simon

1: [bug#74736] [PATCH v7] Add Guix Common Document process.
Simon Tournier <[email-masked]>
Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:45:51 +0100
id:[email-masked]
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/[email-masked]
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email-masked]