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


View this message in rfc822 format

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: [bug#74736] [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2025 18:28:05 +0100
Noé Lopez <noe <at> noé.eu> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> 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 to decide whether the RFC is withdrawn: it’s easier to add numbers than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).
>>
>
> This is why an ACK/NACK system works great in my opinion: you send “ACK”
> or “NACK” litteraly so your opinion is clear.  And you can just count
> the number of each, without implying a vote.

OK, got it, we agree on this.

>> 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?

[...]

> Half of the committers is 25 people (based on .guix-authorizations), and
> a quarter of the team members is 10.  Personnally, I have trouble
> imagining that this amount of people will come to send a mail to the
> RFC.

So are you saying you’d want no quorum at all?  (Your revision still
reads “50% committers”.)

>> 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.
>>
>
> Good idea!  I’ll be waiting for your v5 then.  And then I can bring
> back the RFC template.

OK, will do in the coming days.

>> (A bit sad that it’s just the three of us talking, we wouldn’t have the
>> quorum here…)
>>
>
> Agreed.
>
> Lastly, do we want to move the RFCs to a separate git repository?

I think so.  I’ll ask for it on Savannah.

Thanks,
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.