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

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 12:03:29 +0100

Hi Noé,

Noé Lopez <[email-masked]> skribis:

>> It seems unchanged compared to v3.  WDYT of my comments, suggestions,
.> and proposed wording:
>>
>>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#9
>>
>> ?
>
> As Simon said, I think a vote goes against the principle of
> consensus.

OK.  As I wrote in my reply to Simon, my thought here was that “voting”*
would give a clear and unambiguous way, not subject to interpretation,
to decide whether the RFC is withdrawn: it’s easier to add numbers than
to determine whether “a positive consensus is reached” (current
wording).

But I don’t know, I guess that’s an “I will live with it” from me on
this one.  :-)

Two other issue I raised was the quorum: Simon proposed half of the
committers; I propose 25% of team members.  Thoughts?

* Maybe “voting” is misleading; “deliberation” might be clearer.

>>   2. on the submission -> withdrawn transition, in case nobody supports
>>      the RFC.

[...]

> I agree with that timeline, but I would have just “forgotten” an RFC
> that doesn’t pass the submission period, since that would mean it is not
> good enough to be discussed.  It can just be kept in the mail archives
> like any other unfinished idea.
>
> A withdrawn RFC would mean keeping it in the rfc/withdrawn directory.

Oh right, forgotten/dismissed seems more appropriate than withdrawn
here.

Anyway, I think we should aim for finalization of v1 of the RFC process
by, say, Jan. 15th.  I will dedicate some time to tweak the wording, and
then we can call it a thing.

(A bit sad that it’s just the three of us talking, we wouldn’t have the
quorum here…)

Ludo’.