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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz>
Cc: 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#76407] About consensus (was Re: [bug#76407] [GCD] Rename the default branch)
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 13:30:48 +0100

Hi Tomas,

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 at 22:23, Tomas Volf <~@wolfsden.cz> wrote:
> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Somehow, in all this thread, after re-reading it, I’m still missing the
>> “active” part from: « 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. »
>
> But we are not in a deliberation period yet, so there, by definition, is
> no "A deliberating member disapproving a proposal".  At least if I read
> the GCD #1 correctly.

The GCD reads:

        Anyone who is a team member is a deliberating member

        Contributors and even more so team members are expected to help
        build consensus.

Therefore, my understanding of the paragraph,

        A deliberating member disapproving a proposal bears a
        responsibility for finding alternatives, proposing ideas or
        code, or explaining the rationale for the status quo.

reads “deliberating member” <==> “team member” here.

Well, I do not know if the GCD #001 appears to you unclear but, to me,
it reads:

 + We discuss the specific elements of the document for building a
   consensus.  The discussion is open to anyone; team members are
   expected to help build consensus.

 + Once it’s done, team members deliberate.

Somehow, it would not make much sense that a team member waits the
(last) Deliberation Period to be active in finding alternatives,
proposing ideas or code, or explaining the rationale for the status quo.
When such activity fits the Discussion Period, IMHO.

That’s said, I read good faith in the intent of your comment and I
refrain myself to see some nitpicking.

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

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