GNU bug report logs - #76407
[GCD] A better name for the default branch

Previous Next

Full log

Message #122 received at 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ekaitz Zarraga <ekaitz <at> elenq.tech>, Liliana Marie Prikler
 <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, Ludovic Courtès
 <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2025 12:34:33 +0100

Hi all,

Sorry, I am missing something – I’ve re-read all the thread.  As Leo
pointed, are we building all together a consensus here?  Reminder:

        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.

Therefore, if some of us do not care to use master or main, then it
means some of us consent in one way or the other, no?  That’s what I’m
missing, I guess.

Consent does not mean we are all convinced, neither we fully support,
neither we are deeply aligned, neither our own opinion reads “yeah this
change the best idea ever”, etc.  Consent means accepting another angle
than our own, one angle that I do not fully share but I can live with.

In full transparency, I sponsor the GCD but I do not support it: I agree
(consent) to change the branch name.  Somehow, it removes me nothing
neither adds me something, and for the rest, I do not feel qualified
enough to publicly share a strong opinion.  Ah, we are not yet in the
“Deliberation Period“. :-)

Hey, we are still in the “Discussion Period”. :-)

In the “Discussion Period”, the main rule is to listen the other points
of view and challenge our first impression or initial opinion.  In other
words, we ask more explanations about some wording, we propose new
wordings, we ask more details about the motivation, etc. More
importantly, we challenge the technical bits.

And always being very specific with the GCD at hand.

Making decision with consensus isn’t passive – scanning the document and
then answering yes or no – but consensus is active: Ask questions and/or
Propose alternatives and/or Explain the rationale for the status quo.

In this thread, are we working all together to build a consensus?

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

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