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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #60 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, 30 Dec 2024 12:03:29 +0100

Hi Noé,

Noé Lopez <noe <at> noé.eu> skribis:

>> It seems unchanged compared to v3.  WDYT of my comments, suggestions,
.> and proposed wording:
>>
>>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#9
>>
>> ?
>
> As Simon said, I think a vote goes against the principle of
> consensus.

OK.  As I wrote in my reply to Simon, my thought here was that “voting”*
would give a clear and unambiguous way, not subject to interpretation,
to decide whether the RFC is withdrawn: it’s easier to add numbers than
to determine whether “a positive consensus is reached” (current
wording).

But I don’t know, I guess that’s an “I will live with it” from me on
this one.  :-)

Two other issue I raised was the quorum: Simon proposed half of the
committers; I propose 25% of team members.  Thoughts?

* Maybe “voting” is misleading; “deliberation” might be clearer.

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 withdrawn transition, in case nobody supports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

[...]

> I agree with that timeline, but I would have just “forgotten” an RFC
> that doesn’t pass the submission period, since that would mean it is not
> good enough to be discussed.  It can just be kept in the mail archives
> like any other unfinished idea.
>
> A withdrawn RFC would mean keeping it in the rfc/withdrawn directory.

Oh right, forgotten/dismissed seems more appropriate than withdrawn
here.

Anyway, I think we should aim for finalization of v1 of the RFC process
by, say, Jan. 15th.  I will dedicate some time to tweak the wording, and
then we can call it a thing.

(A bit sad that it’s just the three of us talking, we wouldn’t have the
quorum here…)

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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