Subject: Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch

From: Leo Famulari <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 00:48:02 -0400

I think I share Simon's point of view on this proposal. I'm basically
indifferent about the outcome of the proposal. I'd want to see a group
effort on enumerating, testing, and solving the technical challenges
before we make the change. There has been some discussion about that. I
think we should be careful about the technical stuff.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 09:16:35PM +0100, Ekaitz Zarraga wrote:
> In summary, looks like we are more open to change things to please imaginary
> people than pleasing, lets say, just me, a real person, that is actually
> part of the project.

After I read Ekaitz's message here, I went back and read the thread. As
I read it, Ekaitz's message highlights that there has not been much
consensus-building. I think that when there is disagreement about a GCD,
there needs to be be active work to build a consensus that is
enthusiastic --- not indifferent.

I've been intimately involved in organizations that govern themselves
with a structured consensus system like the GCD process, and it's work
that requires a lot of energy and strong social skills.

My experience made me think that the range of topics that can be
successfully handled with consensus may be limited to that which
pertains to the shared experience of the members. Else, the group may
not be able to actually reach a consensus, and maybe it comes to a vote,
or some people just accept a change indifferently or with calculated
resignation. (Those can be okay outcomes too, IMO, even the last one.
You can't always get what you want.) My point is that we all share an
experience with Guix, computing, Git, etc, but not with English language
or the English and American societies.

Guix team members are the constituents of the GCD process. If some of
them have objections to a proposal, that means there is work to do, from
all of us.

To quote the Decision Making section of the GCD text itself (GCD 001):

------
Contributors and even more so team members are expected to help build
consensus.  By using consensus, we are committed to finding solutions that
everyone can live with.

Thus, no decision is made against significant concerns; these concerns are
actively resolved through counter proposals.  A deliberating member
disapproving a proposal bears a responsibility for finding alternatives,
proposing ideas or code, or explaining the rationale for the status quo.

To learn what consensus decision making means and understand its finer
details, you are encouraged to read
<https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/consensus>.
------