Subject: Re: [bug#74736] [PATCH v8] Add Request-For-Comment process.

From: Simon Tournier <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:40:45 +0100

Hi,

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 at 18:15, Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As for the name, I was fine with “RFC”, I’m fine with “Guix Consensus
> Document” (as pukkamustard suggested), but I would rather avoid “Guix
> Common Document”, which IMO fails to convey what this is about.

Just to mention that pukkamustard also suggested ’Guix Common Document’
as the previous Guix Days. ;-)  See [1].

Could you explain why “Guix Common Document” fails to convey what this
is about?

That’s said, I’m fine with Guix Consensus Document.  Because even if we
change for another “Decision Making“ strategy as a complex voting
method, the initial idea will be always encoded for ever! :-)

1: [post Guix Days] Guix Common Document (was: Request-For-Comment process)
Simon Tournier <[email-masked]>
Sat, 03 Feb 2024 11:34:13 +0100
id:[email-masked]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2024-02
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email-masked]

> +  - A *sponsor* is a contributor who, during the submission period (see
> +    below), informs the author(s) that they would like to support the
> +    RFC by participating in discussions, providing constructive comments
> +    to help the author(s), soliciting opinions, and acting as
> +    timekeepers.
> +
> +    Sponsors should be contributors who consider being sufficiently
> +    familiar with the project’s practices; hence it is recommended, but
> +    not mandatory, to be a team member.

I would add:

        As sponsor, please make sure that all have the time and space for
        expressing their comments.  The GCD is about significant changes, thus
        more opinions is better than less.

or something along these lines.  Because it appears to me important that
we write down that.

WDYT?

Cheers,
simon