GNU bug report logs - #74736
[PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #108 received at 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "pukkamustard" <pukkamustard <at> posteo.net>
To: <74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2025 16:26:40 +0000

Thank you all for working on this.

Some comments:

- I had to think if I am a _team member_ or not. The term is not defined in the
  document. I think this is mostly due to there not being a RFC on teams (yet).
  Still, to make the Process RFC understandable, I'd add a brief explanation of
  what team members are (i.e. members in etc/teams.scm). 
  
  Likewise, I think the Process RFC would be simpler to understand if feedback
  is required from a fixed number of team members instead of a percentage. I
  believe there has been some discussion on this, that I have not been able to
  follow completely, so ignore if already discussed and agreed upon.

- The term "supporter" is used for two things where it's not clear if
  it's the same:

    1. People listed as supporters in the RFC metadata.
    2. Team members that respond with "I support" during the Deliberation
       Period.

  Furthermore, in the section "Submission Period" it says that authors
  can look for supporters. But the wording in the "Deliberation Period"
  suggests that the "I support" emails should only be sent in the
  Deliberation Period when the final version is published.
  
  For example: Ricardo replied with "I support". What does that mean when the
  Deliberation Period has not yet started?

  I think what is meant is that supporters can be recruited at any time
  and team members responding during the Deliberation Period with "I
  support" become supporters and will be added to the list of supporters
  in the metadata. This should be clarified.

- The term "final" is overloaded and underused:

  1. "Final" is a state of an RFC.
  2. In section "Discussion Period" the authors should publish a "final"
     version. But this is not a RFC that has state "Final".
  3. In section "Deliberation Period" a valid response by team members is "I
     accept". The RFC is also described as "accepted". The term for the state
     "Final" is not used.
     
  I'd suggest renaming the RFC state "Final" to "Accepted".
  
- In Section "Deliberation Period" the team member response is "I disapprove"
  but in the next section the term "disagree" is used. I'd use the same term for
  clarity.

- The "I disapprove" reply is only allowed if member actively proposed
  alternative solutions during the "Discussion Period". I feel that might be a
  bit of a strong requirement as that means you can not disapprove a RFC if you
  only see it after the "Deliberation Period" has started. Maybe that's ok as
  RFCs need to be announced to guix-devel. Still it might be a bit strong. Maybe
  something along the lines: "A team member sending this reply must explain
  their disapproval and should suggest constructive changes to the proposal that
  would make it approvable."

- I think the name "Guix Consensus Documents (GCD)" would be slightly
  funnier - a play on greatest common divisor (as mentioned by Simon).
  But I think RFC is a term that is more widely understood and that's
  fine.
  
I'm not quite clear what this means, but: I support. :) 

I will be afk during the Deliberation Period (and not present in
Brussels) but I think this is an important step for Guix and am fine
with being added to the `supporters` field.

-pukkamustard

Previous Next

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