#74736 [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.

Message #21 received at 74736@debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Dec 2024 19:32:20 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Dec 12 14:32:19 2024
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40382 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tLov4-0004MQ-PZ
	for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:32:19 -0500
Received: from [209.85.128.43] (port=49328 helo=mail-wm1-f43.google.com)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>) id 1tLov1-0004Lg-4k
 for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 14:32:17 -0500
Received: by mail-wm1-f43.google.com with SMTP id
 5b1f17b1804b1-43623f0c574so7198475e9.2
 for <74736@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:32:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1734031861; x=1734636661; darn=debbugs.gnu.org;
 h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc
 :to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
 bh=U700yMN/nuxPIudi/5OFAsPsChF3o2G1TayxESeDVdc=;
 b=nh/pOTcWNtQXALHxWr0X2FE8nNwGQmWlIoDIISilP1YTKEo73HN3huzEfuBLJn7A0D
 xfIiUVRg63VBxuFcSerhfZC40UY9ulDK5ASglvg1szfWEQTof+aWO3ofs07lWjj7/d1G
 O9Ed7hFcVSv2ALrSgsSdsAROVZ5HfWZxATuRVZEK3lO50Fc7LjhUh5khf/qkbQXLT5rC
 6Rai5Vl1ZLXHmoeTyb6p12QXDqUFIKwO8chnYe2NZZjIQ4La/nDZG6Hs4b4z3KnzAWBd
 oIVatZEtq9VrKOX0gW8iyTsuUFZBPmRmk4kXnqPBNdNgJrLiLNNRm96GIKXU+15x4CA2
 aV8w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1734031861; x=1734636661;
 h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:subject:cc
 :to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id
 :reply-to;
 bh=U700yMN/nuxPIudi/5OFAsPsChF3o2G1TayxESeDVdc=;
 b=JfewcYRcg6Itft8J++REglKq3+IffslswetgqAfGuURZwX+IWigtyIBJC+Kq2xeyLc
 3KP1cEHIITv8AfQrcPCAwYhKoWcDgBBCv2A111LXdUPiJB02ZkWFvY2g8VXUK7rj9PuT
 jj9NznYk04lMMnz2zd4swE2YaCsD8Yv29KNji2LtNfsAW3U+vBuz0PA06SLJ/GID1fs6
 UJv9qTS9icdusleOxbqTFRdqrl8EgndiV2SR4yibwPl7wa409Qm3b3OX91jO0m1dWRYF
 y9SVOoKZChEfaomnSlVakW019M6RIa312HaxnnNeeQQqXAzpbYvb+BC3rlq3BFozVan9
 FLuw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzcrHAXGz10EEnyLKcUJ+W1S9gOLQ2LD2JL7aGo87TbO3RZciuA
 Zq3CKl3ak/dAZdDRX7UVYzE4pAUmsdCSf1OYslt9DdAR5aL2q9RrrRcRIQ==
X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctg9USEr3wKtvNWvYqaRLTcc85Arb7RSeLAluxSdyrPhVl8Q3QYbPMLL5K4vDH
 QIAqE7Rp1ygR/exVULBoPL5eafjsaR/VYfo5HPEgLxtoKDGGbmSIbct4TS+YKUvxrsacImWZ+Az
 x0csp+FOBNoYQ/jfxGYc0Q5JzvQ8mCGZC/mI2T628H5Vv3WFjpKjg6InDgXnbwYO3w11W0BhDn3
 fVMe2XCWteSqdGa2P5YRAuXwNqoLQCFEwSuJsphhmq+b9sjFtv76Ft7h9G8VFjVIUasIOAEr2dQ
 dzVon9aFoRP/6JOzG5/iJi8VCs7R6784IFMGKCPSQdQchMM/squgerx8kJPiMGYJ8w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFLqZDv2o/O1BSys/sRSZLzzETTDZeeYfZj3OneN3o7A97eFlZg2rMtSMguvoBiRxPle5ZZPQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b09:b0:436:1b7a:c0b4 with SMTP id
 5b1f17b1804b1-4361c3454dbmr66100905e9.1.1734031860712; 
 Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:31:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain
 (2a01cb08829ff8006d2f327432852397.ipv6.abo.wanadoo.fr.
 [2a01:cb08:829f:f800:6d2f:3274:3285:2397])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id
 5b1f17b1804b1-43625553234sm26351415e9.3.2024.12.12.11.30.59
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256);
 Thu, 12 Dec 2024 11:31:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
To: 74736@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH v3] rfc: Add Request-For-Comment process.
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:30:56 +0100
Message-ID: <493bcc076f206ec134959268f55a9358b4886b88.1734031781.git.zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.46.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  * rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt: New file. * rfc/0000-template.txt:
    New file. Co-authored-by: Noé Lopez Change-Id: Ide88e70dc785ab954ccb42fb043625db12191208
    --- rfc/0000-template.txt | 76 ++++++++++++ rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt | 248
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 f [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.3 points, 10.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The
                             query to Validity was blocked.  See
                             https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243
                              for more information.
                             [209.85.128.43 listed in bl.score.senderscore.com]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
                             provider (zimon.toutoune[at]gmail.com)
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
                              no trust
                             [209.85.128.43 listed in list.dnswl.org]
  0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE          SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2      RBL: Average reputation (+2)
                             [209.85.128.43 listed in wl.mailspike.net]
  0.0 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED RBL: ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE:
                             The query to Validity was blocked.  See
                             https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243
                              for more information.
                          [209.85.128.43 listed in sa-trusted.bondedsender.org]
  1.3 RDNS_NONE              Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 74736
Cc: Noé Lopez <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>,
 Noé Lopez <noelopez@free.fr>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>,
 Christopher Baines <mail@cbanes.net>,
 Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request@debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/)

* rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt: New file.
* rfc/0000-template.txt: New file.

Co-authored-by: Noé Lopez <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>
Change-Id: Ide88e70dc785ab954ccb42fb043625db12191208
---
 rfc/0000-template.txt    |  76 ++++++++++++
 rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt | 248 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 324 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 rfc/0000-template.txt
 create mode 100644 rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt

diff --git a/rfc/0000-template.txt b/rfc/0000-template.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..8c4077e753
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfc/0000-template.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# -*- mode:org -*-
+#+TITLE: <The meaningful name of the proposal>
+#+DATE: <date when the process starts>
+
++ Issue: <number assigned by Debbugs>
++ Status: <pending|done|unsuccessful|deprecated>
++ Supporter: <Your Name>
++ Co-supporter(s): <Some> <Names>
+
+* Summary
+
+A one-paragraph explanation.  Main sales pitch.
+
+* Motivation
+
+Describe the problem·s this RFC attempts to address as clearly as possible and
+optionally give an example.  Explain how the status quo is insufficient or not
+ideal.
+
+* Detail design
+
+Main part.  The sections answers What are the tradeoffs of this proposal
+compared to status quo or potential alternatives?  Explain details, corner
+cases, provide examples.  Explain it so that someone familiar can understand.
+
+It is best to exemplify, contrived example too. If the Motivation section
+describes something that is hard to do without this proposal, this is a good
+place to show how easy that thing is to do with the proposal.
+
+**  Backward compatibility
+
+# Christopher Baines:
+# I'm struggling to think of exactly how backwards compatibility would
+# apply to potential RFCs for Guix.
+
+Will your proposed change cause a behaviour change?  Assess the expected
+impact on existing code on the following scale:
+
+0. No breakage
+1. Breakage only in extremely rare cases (exotic or unknown cases)
+2. Breakage in rare cases (user living in cutting-edge)
+3. Breakage in common cases
+
+Explain why the benefits of the change outweigh the costs of breakage.
+Describe the migration path.  Consider specifying a compatibility warning for
+one or more releases.  Give examples of error that will be reported for
+previously-working cases; do they make it easy for users to understand what
+needs to change and why?
+
+The aim is to explicitely consider beforehand potential Backward Compatibility
+issue.
+
+** Forward compatibility
+
+# Christopher Baines:
+# I do think it's worth explicitly bringing up something like the "cost of
+# reverting". That is, it's important to discuss things more if there's a
+# high cost to changing the approach later. For these "high cost of later
+# change" situations, the RFC process will probably be particularly
+# valuable.
+
+# Noé Lopez:
+# I think this section could apply very well to governance proposals.
+
+How will your proposed change evolve with time?  What is the cost of changing
+the approach later?
+
+* Unresolved questions
+
+Explicitly list any remaining issues.  At submitting time, be upfront and
+trust that the community will help.  At reviewing time, this section tracks
+the details about the status of the process.
+
+At the end of the process, this section will be empty.  If not, please be
+explicit with the known issues by adding a dedicated subsection under Detail
+design.
diff --git a/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..52d851f879
--- /dev/null
+++ b/rfc/0001-rfc-process.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+# -*- mode:org -*-
+#+TITLE: Request-For-Comment process
+#+DATE: 2023-10-31
+
++ Issue: 66844
++ Status: pending
++ Supporter: Simon Tournier
++ Co-supporters: Noé Lopez
+
+* Summary
+
+The "RFC" (request for comments) process is intended to provide a consistent
+and structured path for major changes and features to enter the Guix project,
+so that all stakeholders can make decisions collectively and be confident
+about the direction it is evolving in.
+
+* Motivation
+
+The current way that we add new features to Guix has been good for early
+development, but it is starting to show its limits as Guix becomes a broadly
+used system with many contributors.  Changes might be slowed down by the lack
+of structure to acquire consensus, lack of a central place to consult
+contributors and users, and lack of clear deadlines.  This is a proposal for a
+more principled RFC process to make it a more integral part of the overall
+development process, and one that is followed consistently to introduce
+substantial features.
+
+There are a number of changes that are significant enough that they could
+benefit from wider community consensus before being introduced.  Either
+because they introduce new concepts, big changes or are controversial enough
+that not everybody will consent on the direction to take.
+
+Therefore, the purpose of this RFC is to introduce a process that allows to
+bring the discussion upfront and strengthen decisions.  This RFC is used to
+bootstrap the process and further RFCs can be used to refine the process.
+
+It covers significant changes, where “significant” means any change that could
+only be reverted at a high cost, or any change with the potential to disrupt
+user scripts and programs or user workflows.  Examples include:
+
+  - changing the <package> record type and/or its interfaces;
+  - adding or removing a ‘guix’ sub-command;
+  - changing the channel mechanism;
+  - changing project policy such as teams, decision-making, the
+    deprecation policy or this very document;
+  - changing the contributor workflow and related infrastructure
+    (mailing lists, source code repository and forge, continuous
+    integration, etc.)
+
+For concrete past examples where this RFC process would be helpful:
+
+ - Removing input labels from package definitions, #49169
+ - Add 'guix shell' to subsume 'guix environment', #50960
+ + Trustable "guix pull", #22883
+ + Add "Deprecation Policy", #72840
+ + Collaboration via team and branch-features, several places over all the
+   mailing lists.
+
+* Detailed Design
+
+** When To Follow This Trocess
+
+This process is followed when one intends to make "substantial" changes to the
+Guix project.  What constitutes a "substantial" change is evolving based on
+community norms, but may include the following.
+
+  + Changes that modify user-facing interfaces that may be relied on
+    + Command-line interfaces
+    + Core Scheme interfaces
+  + Big restructuring of packages
+  + Hard to revert changes
+  + Governance and changes to the way we collaborate
+
+Certain changes do not require an RFC:
+
+  - Adding, updating packages, removing outdated packages
+  - Fixing security updates and bugs that don't break interfaces
+
+For general day-to-day contributions, please follow the regular process as
+described by manual sections "Submitting Patches", "Reviewing the Work of
+Others", "Teams" and "Making Decisions".
+
+A patch submission that contains any of the aforementioned substantial changes
+may be asked to first submit a RFC.
+
+** How the process works
+
+  1. Clone https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
+  2. Copy rfc/0000-template.org to rfc/00XY-good-name.org where good-name is
+     descriptive but not too long and XY increments
+  3. Fill RFC
+  4. Submit to guix-patches@gnu.org
+  5. Announce your RFC to guix-devel@gnu.org
+
+Make sure the proposal is as well-written as you would expect the final
+version of it to be.  It does not mean that all the subtilities must be
+considered at this point since that is the aim of review discussion.  It means
+that the RFC process is not a prospective brainstorming and the proposal
+formalize an idea for making it happen.
+
+The submission of a proposal does not require an implementation.  However, to
+improve the chance of a successful RFC, it is ecommended to have an idea for
+implementing it.  If an implementation is attached to the detailed design, it
+might help the discussion.
+
+At this point, at least one other person must volunteer to be "co-supporter".
+The aim is to improve the chances that the RFC is both desired and likely to
+be implemented.
+
+Once supporter and co-supporter(s) are committed in the RFC process, the
+review discussion starts.  Publicizing of the RFC on the project's mailing
+list named guix-devel is mandatory, and on other main communication channels
+is highly recommended.
+
+After a number of rounds of review, the discussion should settle and a general
+consensus should emerge.  Please follow the "Decision Process" and "Timeline"
+sections.
+
+A successful RFC is not a rubber stamp, and in particular still does not mean
+the feature will ultimately be merged; it does mean that in principle all the
+participants have agreed to the feature and are amenable to merging it.
+
+An unsuccessful RFC is *not* a judgment on the value of the work, so a refusal
+should rather be interpreted as “let’s discuss again with a different angle”.
+The last state of an unsuccessful RFC is archived under the directory
+rfc/withdrawn/.
+
+** Co-supporter
+
+A co-supporter is a contributor sufficiently familiar with the project’s
+practices, hence it is recommended, but not mandatory, to be a contributor
+with commit access.  The co-supporter helps the supporter, they are both
+charged with keeping the proposal moving through the process.  The
+co-supporter role is to help the proposal supporter by being the timekeeper
+and helps in pushing forward until process completion.
+
+The co-supporter doesn't necessarily have to agree with all the points of the
+RFC but should generally be satisfied that the proposed additions are a good
+thing for the community.
+
+** Timeline
+
+The lifetime of an RFC is structured into the following recommended periods:
+
+  submission (7d) ⟶ comments (30–60d) ⟶ last call (14d) ⟶ withdrawn OR final
+
+The author may withdraw their RFC proposal at any time; and it might be
+submitted again.
+
+*** Submission (up to 7 days)
+
+The author submits their RFC proposal as a regular patch and look for
+co-supporter(s). See 'Co-supporter' section.
+
+Once the RFC is co-supported, it marks the start of a discussion period.
+
+*** Comment (at least 30 days, up to 60 days)
+
+The comment period starts once the author publishes their RFC to guix-devel,
+then the proposal is freely discussed for a period of at least 30 days.  It is
+up to the supporter and co-supporter(s) to ensure that sufficient discussion
+is solicited.  Please make sure that all have the time and space for
+expressing their comments.  The proposal is about significant changes, thus
+more opinions is better than less.
+
+The author is encouraged to publish updated versions of their RFC at any point
+during the discussion period.
+
+Once the discussion goes stale or after 60 days, the author must summarize the
+state of the conversation and keep the final version.
+
+It moves to the last call period.
+
+*** Last call (up to 14 days)
+
+The author publishes a final version of the RFC and a last grace period of 14
+days is granted.  People are asked to agree or disagree by commenting:
+
+ - +1 / LGTM: I support
+ - =0 / LGTM: I will live with it
+ - -1: I disagree with this proposal
+
+At least half of people with commit acces must express their voice with the
+keys above during this last call.  We need to be sure that the RFC had been
+read by people committed to take care of the project, since it proposes an
+important change.
+
+When a positive consensus is reached, the RFC becomes effective.  If not, the
+proposal is archived and the statu quo continues.
+
+
+** Decision Making: consensus
+
+It is expected from all contributors, and even more so from committers, to
+help build consensus and make decisions based on consensus.  By using
+consensus, we are committed to finding solutions that everyone can live with.
+
+It implies that no decision is made against significant concerns and these
+concerns are actively resolved with proposals that work for everyone.  A
+contributor, without or with commit access, wishing to block a proposal bears
+a special responsibility for finding alternatives, proposing ideas/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>.
+
+** Merging the outcome
+
+Once a consesus is made, a committer should do the following to merge the RFC:
+
+ 1. Fill in the remaining metadata in the RFC header, including links for the
+    original Debbugs submission.
+ 2. Commit everything.
+ 3. Announce the establishment of the RFC to all.
+
+** Template of RFC
+
+The structure of the RFC is captured by the template; see the file
+rfc/0000-template.txt.  Please use Markdown as markup language.
+
+** Backward Compatibility
+
+None.
+
+** Forward compatibility
+
+The RFC process can be refined by further RFCs.
+
+** Drawbacks
+
+There is a risk that the additional process will hinder contribution more than
+it would help.  We should stay alert that the process is only a way to help
+contribution, not an end in itself.
+
+Of course, group decision-making processes are difficult to manage.
+
+The ease of commenting may bring a slightly diminished signal-to-noise ratio
+in collected feedback, particularly on easily bike-shedded topics.
+
+** Open questions
+
+There are still questions regarding the desired scope of the process.  While
+we want to ensure that changes which affect the users are well-considered, we
+certainly don't want the process to become unduly burdensome.  This is a
+careful balance which will require care to maintain moving forward.
+
+* Unresolved questions

base-commit: 93e1586116f39a30ba1fcb67bd839a43533dfaf4
-- 
2.45.2

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.