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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant <at> debian.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>, Noé Lopez <noelopez <at> free.fr>, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process.
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2025 16:40:43 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Overall, this seems quite good, nice work all!

I do have one specific comment... though I am a latecomer to this
discussion!

On 2025-01-06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> ### Deliberation Period (14 days)
>
> All members of any team of the Guix project can participate in
> deliberation and are encouraged to do so.
>
> Once the final version is published, team members have 14 days to send
> one of the following replies on the patch-tracking entry of the RFC:
>
> - “I support”, meaning that one supports the proposal);
> - “I accept”, meaning that one consents to the implementation of the
>   proposal;
> - “I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the
>   proposal.  A team member sending this reply must have actively
>   proposed alternative solutions during the discussion period.
>
> 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 *withdrawn*.

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".

... Well, two points, apparently, now that I got the simple one out of
the way... :)

In other consensus settings I have on occasion declared something that
is effectively "I accept, but I disapprove" or maybe more descriptively
"I accept, with reservations" e.g. not agreeing with the decision but
not severely enough that it should not move forward. You might not
expect to get much help with implementation from such a person, though!

I guess again, it comes to word alignment ... "I disapprove" sounds
rather soft, compared to the effects (e.g. blocking further progress or
sending it back to the proverbial drawing board). "I accept" sounds
rather positive, despite the possibility of some potential discomfort
with the decision...

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?

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?


Eeesh. Three points!

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.


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.


live well,
  vagrant

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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