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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #236 received at 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Noé Lopez <noelopez <at> free.fr>
To: Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com>
Cc: Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com>,
 Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>, 76407 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#76407] Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default
 branch" has technically started
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 21:26:06 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Greg Hogan <code <at> greghogan.com> writes:

> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 2:08 PM Noé Lopez <noelopez <at> free.fr> wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Howard <christopher <at> librehacker.com> writes:
>> It seems like you are not a member of any team.  This means you are not
>> eligible to vote on the GCD.
>
> Where is this documented? Perhaps we should better distinguish votes
> by deliberating members. Apache "PMC members have formally binding
> votes, but in general communities encourage all their members to vote,
> even if their votes are only advisory"
> [https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html].
>

I am not a native english speaker, so a difference between eligibile and
deliberating member was not what I was trying to point out, it seems the
example you provide is similar to our GCD process.

The GCD process can be found at
<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix/guix-consensus-documents.git/tree/001-gcd-process.md>.

Here is the related paragraph:
>The *deliberation period* starts when the authors publish a final version
>of the GCD at `info-guix <at> gnu.org`.  Anyone who is a team member is a
>deliberating member and is encouraged to contribute to the deliberation.


>> In any case, please explain your rationale for disapproval. To quote the
>> GCD process:
>>
>> >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.
>
> This "finding alternatives, proposing ideas or code, or explaining the
> rationale for the status quo" is the discussion period. I do agree
> that summarizing one's viewpoints (and how these issues went
> unaddressed) when voting for "disapproval" is worthwhile ("withdrawal
> does not necessarily equate with rejection; it could mean that more
> discussion and thought is needed before ideas in the GCD are accepted
> by the community").
>

Agreed, though it is not specified that the quoted paragraph refers only
to the discussion period. It is part of a section on consensus based
decision making, which applies to the whole GCD process and Guix in
general.

Have a nice day,
Noé

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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