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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #156 received at 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>,
 Noé Lopez <noelopez <at> free.fr>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#74736] [PATCH v6] Add Request-for-Comments process.
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 13:45:02 +0100

Hi Janneke,

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 at 08:44, Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> wrote:

>> # Motivation
>
> Am I right that the main purpose/intent is (not trying to twist anyone's words)

[...]

>   * to draw more attention to / have important discussions stand out
>   more in all the "noise", and guided by

[...]

>   * a collective decision on what "important" is?

Yes! :-)

>                                    A drawback could be that it slows
> development down, but for important changes that may be a good thing?

I would you say yes :-)

And I would also say it’s a counter measure against “Why wasn't I
consulted“ [1] or some bullet points [2] from the talk that appear to me
helpful and that had been inspiration.

1: https://youtu.be/m0rakUuPXFM
2: https://simon.tournier.info/posts/2023-10-30-toward-rfc.html


> The only things that I could suggest is to see if we should make it even
> be more lightweight/nimble as a first version, e.g, require only two
> *persons*, so that two authors could start a submission
>
>     The RFC is *submitted* once it has at least one co-author or
>     supporter in addition to the initial author(s).

Ah you mean that the case of ’two authors’ does not require a Sponsor*,
right?

*Sponsor: was ’Supporter’ but renamed in order to avoid confusion
 between supporting the Document before the Discussion Period and
 replying ’I support’ during the Delibration Period.

> or use shorter periods, e.g.
>
>     submission[label=<Submission Period<br />up to 7 days>]
>     comments[label=<Discussion Period<br />15–60 days>]
>     deliberation[label=<Deliberation Period<br />8-14 days>]
>
> but I have no strong opinion on these.

About the Discussion Period, I do not have an opinion.  From my
intuition, it appears to be helpful when all have the time and space for
expressing their comments.

About the Deliberation Period, I think we need to have enough time and 2
weeks sound the good range based on what we are already doing for patch
review.

Thanks for the comments.

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

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