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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #171 received at 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247 <at> gmail.com>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:47:45 -0500

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:

> Well, I know RFC is the usual name for this kind of thing (I also used
> RFC when discussing it).  Nonetheless, I find nicer to not follow such
> “convention”, as for example Python Enhancement Proposals (PEP)
> does. :-) And the term RFC is already too much overloaded in Guix
> mailing list, IMHO.
>
> In addition, I like ’Guix Common Document’ because it expresses what
> it is: our shared (common) direction.  Moreover it echoes with Commons
> and somehow the process tries to capture that: what we collectively
> want to preserve.  Last, pun with mathematical notion of greatest
> common divisor (gcd) [1].

To the extent it is important that the term be somewhat
self-explanatory, to me the term "Guix Common Document" did not imply
that it is a "proposal", nor that it is intended to "change" or
"enhance" current implementation in some specific way(s).  As with all
anecdotal evidence, take this with a grain of salt.

IMO, "Guix Change Process", or "Guix Change Proposal", or "Guix
Enhancement Proposal" may be more self-evident.

-- 
Suhail

Previous Next

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