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: 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: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 18:40:14 +0100

Hi,

Noé Lopez <noe <at> noé.eu> skribis:

> To take a realistic example, say I make an RFC for P2P substitute
> distribution with GNUNet/ERIS, this is a big change that requires an RFC
> but I have trouble imagining that ten people in the team members are
> interested in that.
>
> Teams are specialized after all, if I add myself to the games team it
> doesn’t mean I care about RFCs for what would be the core team.

Yes.

I’m not sure about this particular example though: *if* this is
implemented as an opt-in functionality, it’s not necessarily a “big
change” in that (1) it’s disabled by default, and (2) it could be
removed entirely from the code base anytime.  So under these conditions,
it would not even qualify for the RFC process.

Conversely, the examples given in the current RFC draft really have an
impact on everyone and are hard or impossible to revert.

> That said I trust your experience to find a quorum that works and if you
> think ten is realistic then go for it.

I don’t have experience but I think that we want to make sure there’s
enough community input.  This will require publicity about each RFC and
probably we’ll have to do some web/automation work to help publicize new
RFCs and RFC status changes.

Fundamentally, we need to view ourselves as a community with shared
goals, making decisions together—that is what it means to be a “member”
of the project.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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