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: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com>, 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#74736] Re v8 of Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 18:43:59 +0100

Hi,

Thanks for your comments.

On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 at 16:57, Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel <at> crazy-compilers.com> wrote:

> Section "How the Process Works", number 2: Is –sequence number obvious
> enough? If the GCD is not pushed to the repo right after creating,
> other authors need to look at the patches-mailinglist.

The “sequence number“ of GCD is incremented once the proposal is
‘Submitted’.  Once ’Submitted’, the GCD process ends with two potential
states: accepted or withdrawn.

> Section "How the Process Works", number 3: I don't understand "must
> not be prospective". According to dict.leo.org, "prospective"
> translates in German to adjectives like long-sighted put also to in
> the future, estimated, likley.

The complete sentence reads: « The GCD must not be prospective; it must
formalize an idea and sketch a plan to implement it, even if not all
details are known. ».  Because the GCD must not be a brainstorming
session or a vague idea but a concrete proposal.

Well, I am not native and ‘prospective’ sounds close to French. :-)
Maybe native speaker might say whether that’s the correct term for the
idea behind.

> Section "How the Process Works", number 4: It should be states
> explicitly that the patch is for/against guix-consensus-documents.

I’m not sure to get the comment.  Is it not clear with

 1. Clone https://…/guix-consensus-documents.git 

?

> Section "Roles", Sponsor: "is a contributor" and "should be a
> contributor". Contributor to the GCD or to Guix? What makes one a
> "contributor"? Is the term defined somewhere else, e.g. in the Guix
> Manual?

Indeed, thanks.

> Section "Timelime", Flowshart: Some kind of "declined" is missing.

Updated.

> Section "Submission Period": withdraw and can resubmit "possibly under
> a new GCD number". Why possibly? What are the rules whether a new
> number has to be used?

Once the GCD is “Submitted”, it ends with the state either “Accepted” or
“Widthdrawn”.  Therefore, if a “Submitted” GCD is “Widthdrawn”, then a
new “Submission” gets a new number (if the new becomes “Submitted”).

That’s the idea.

> Section "Submission Period", Withdrawal and Resubmit: Are there any
> rules why or when an author may resubmit the GCD? Is feedback like
> "The idea is good, but a lot of things popped up during discussion, so
> we need revise the GCD in great parts" a case for this?

It seems up to the authors, no?  And it depends on why author withdrawn
before the “Deliberation Period”.

> Section "Discussion Period": Can the period be extended? What happens
> if there is still heavy discussion aber 60 days?

IMHO, it’s better if we keep a bounded period.  Somehow, if after 60
days we are not able to have a consensus, it means the idea is not ready
yet.  Based on this output, nothing prevent to resubmit later once new
and a fresh point of view comes in.

> Section "Deliberate period": IMHO "deliberation" is the wrong term,
> since the team members send in their votes. I suggest calling it
> "Voting Period", even if someone might argue that in consent based
> decision making, "deliberation" is the term to use.

I prefer the term ’deliberation’, from dictionary:

+ Deliberation is the long and careful consideration of a subject.
+ Deliberations are formal discussions where an issue is considered
  carefully.

And, to me the term ’vote’ implies to pick a method for voting.

Well, if ’vote’ is preferred over ’deliberation’, then I would suggest:
“Consensus Voting Period” to make it clear that’s only the concise
expression of what happened during the “Discussion Period”.


> Section "Deliberate period":The 25% are to be counted at which
> valuation date? I propose:

Is something lost in translation? :-)

> Section "Deliberate period": The sentence "Deliberation aims to …"
> should be moved near the beginning of the section.

I agree.

> Section "Deliberate period":Same for "Anyone who is a team member..."

I agree.  And the same idea appeared twice, hence cleaned up.

> Section "Deliberate period": "GCD acceptence" and "withdrawal does not
> necessarily" should go out of this section into as more general
> part. Mayby into "Decision Making" (see my next point on this).

I do not know…

> Section "Deliberate period": IMHO if a vast number of team members
> disapprove the proposal it should be taken as rejected.

There is no formal distinction between ’withdrawn’ because the author
decides to do so or because the consensus leads to a disparagement.

Maybe we could introduce that have four potential states for the GCD
(accepted or deprecated, rejected, withdrawn).

> Section "Decision Making": should go in front of "Timeline", since it
> describes the principle.

I do not have any opinion.


Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

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