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

Package	Source(s)		Maintainer(s)
guix-patches		PTS Buildd Popcon

Message #27 received at 74736@debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox, reply):

Received: (at 74736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Dec 2024 10:06:39 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Dec 14 05:06:39 2024
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45556 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
	by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1tMP2h-0008MS-66
	for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:06:39 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44796)
 by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1tMP2Z-0008MA-VU
 for 74736@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:06:32 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
 id 1tMP2R-0001Vk-Hv; Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:06:19 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
 s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To:
 From; bh=lgd8+r9C/gP59+QAP8FjfA3NmSLn+x9OGfmB4Prdh18=; b=sUQOfIAE5WX8p3PoiHO7
 Rx6WMagYBP23ElbKbquSgWHDFP3uj2c0IX6y+j95rHTfV5mWaIXyesVbxSt7HIP1778QY/3UZC3Lq
 gNZXsJH0hJDL/hnaKnNySmLgEfhI7y+Ig+cYLLpZpFazce/5mxyy3c6n2VphrHnGnzR9XYY1O0IjX
 TFlt1xkAkV7dQc4/dDz9AKeEVI6TqiJdtiIK7ZEV67snxgjmz8gRIhxvd466I8wJsW6p7A7kNd1EZ
 rufHg2M1hMkqYcB/PPkn9PFCQlig0eLo0ZS9UXrxwnEnmLFQgeD+wmZtqEkqqkUMHNrJHxcFKIT88
 KkCaY8OjXPOqyQ==;
From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#74736: [PATCH v2 0/1] Add Request-For-Comment process.
In-Reply-To: <87ed2cn0oq.fsf@gmail.com> (Simon Tournier's message of "Thu, 12
 Dec 2024 20:47:17 +0100")
References: <cover.1733614983.git.noelopez@free.fr>
 <09ff9f31af0575ba5223bf713f166101e79b8d99.1733614983.git.noelopez@free.fr>
 <875xno7oqg.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87ed2cn0oq.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2024 11:06:15 +0100
Message-ID: <87v7vmo9yg.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 74736
Cc: Noé Lopez <noe@xn--no-cja.eu>, 74736@debbugs.gnu.org,
 Christopher Baines <mail@cbanes.net>, Steve George <steve@futurile.net>
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: -3.3 (---)

Hi,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

>>> +** Decision making: consensus
>>
>> … and drop this.
>
> I think it makes more sense to have the Decision Making as RFC and then
> the manual refers to it, and not the converse. ;-)
>
> Therefore, I would keep the section here.  And once we are done, letting
> the manual as-is, I would link to RFC.
>
> What defines the Decision Making *is* RFC and not the manual. ;-)

Earlier, I wrote:

> I would add “General day-to-day contributions follow the regular
> [decision-making process] and [team organization].”, with references to
> the relevant sections of the manual.

Since (1) day-to-day contributions do not follow the RFC process and (2)
teams and consensus-based decision making are already defined (and went
through peer review), I think it makes more sense to build on these two
sections we already have.

>>> +* Unresolved questions
>>
>> I think these two sections in the context of this foundational document
>> look a bit ridiculous.  :-)  But maybe that’s okay?
>
> I think that the first RFC must respects what it asks to other RFC. ;-)
>
> And if the consensus is not reached, we need a place to summarize the
> unresolved discussion, no?

I already mentioned it back in February, FWIW:
<https://issues.guix.gnu.org/66844#3-lineno186>.

Anyway, no big deal, but it will certainly look strange eventually.

Ludo’.

Display info messages

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.

debbugs.gnu.org maintainers <help-debbugs@gnu.org>. Last modified: Sun Dec 22 16:48:52 2024; Machine Name: wallace-server

GNU bug tracking system

Debbugs is free software and licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License version 2. The current version can be obtained from https://bugs.debian.org/debbugs-source/.

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