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: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>, 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbanes.net>, Steve George <steve <at> futurile.net>
Subject: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 11:06:15 +0100

Hi,

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

>>> +** Decision making: consensus
>>
>> … and drop this.
>
> I think it makes more sense to have the Decision Making as RFC and then
> the manual refers to it, and not the converse. ;-)
>
> Therefore, I would keep the section here.  And once we are done, letting
> the manual as-is, I would link to RFC.
>
> What defines the Decision Making *is* RFC and not the manual. ;-)

Earlier, I wrote:

> I would add “General day-to-day contributions follow the regular
> [decision-making process] and [team organization].”, with references to
> the relevant sections of the manual.

Since (1) day-to-day contributions do not follow the RFC process and (2)
teams and consensus-based decision making are already defined (and went
through peer review), I think it makes more sense to build on these two
sections we already have.

>>> +* Unresolved questions
>>
>> I think these two sections in the context of this foundational document
>> look a bit ridiculous.  :-)  But maybe that’s okay?
>
> I think that the first RFC must respects what it asks to other RFC. ;-)
>
> And if the consensus is not reached, we need a place to summarize the
> unresolved discussion, no?

I already mentioned it back in February, FWIW:
<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66844#3-lineno186>.

Anyway, no big deal, but it will certainly look strange eventually.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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