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

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2024 12:29:02 UTC

Severity: important

Tags: patch

Merged with 66844

Done: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #42 received at 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Noé Lopez <noe <at> xn--no-cja.eu>
Cc: 74736 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#74736: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 15:42:24 +0100
Hi Noé,

Thanks for this new version.

Noé Lopez <noe <at> noé.eu> skribis:

> +### Submission (up to 7 days)
> +
> +The author submits their RFC proposal as a regular patch and look for
> +co-supporter(s). See “Co-supporter” section.
> +
> +Once the RFC is co-supported, it marks the start of a discussion period.

[...]

> +### Last call (up to 14 days)
> +
> +The author publishes a final version of the RFC and a last grace period
> +of 14 days is granted. People are asked to agree or disagree by
> +commenting:
> +
> +-   +1 / LGTM: I support
> +-   =0 / LGTM: I will live with it
> +-   -1: I disagree with this proposal
> +
> +At least half of people with commit access must express their voice with
> +the keys above during this last call. We need to be sure that the RFC
> +had been read by people committed to take care of the project, since it
> +proposes an important change.
> +
> +When a positive consensus is reached, the RFC becomes effective. If not,
> +the proposal is archived and the status quo continues.

It seems unchanged compared to v3.  WDYT of my comments, suggestions,
and proposed wording:

  https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#9

?

I think we should now make sure we reach consensus on the timeline, and
in particular:

  1. on the voting process;

  2. on the submission -> withdrawn transition, in case nobody supports
     the RFC.

Once we have that, we can fine-tune the language and hopefully be done
within a couple of weeks.

I like the Dot graph you submitted!  Here’s an updated version, with a
new submission -> withdrawn arrow (as proposed in the comment above) and
with hopefully clearer names (in particular “Voting Period” rather than
“Last call”):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
digraph "RFC Timeline" {
    submission[label=<Submission Period<br />7 days>]
    comments[label=<Discussion Period<br />30–60 days>]
    last_call[label=<Voting Period<br />14 days>]
    withdrawn[label=Withdrawn, shape=rectangle]
    final[label=Final, shape=rectangle]
    
    submission -> comments
    submission -> withdrawn
    comments -> last_call
    last_call -> withdrawn
    last_call -> final
    
    withdrawn -> submission [label="New version"]
    
    comments -> withdrawn
}
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Thoughts?

Thanks for getting the ball rolling!

Ludo’.




This bug report was last modified 89 days ago.

Previous Next


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