[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Time for a request-for-comments process?
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Time for a request-for-comments process? |
Date: |
Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:08:05 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello!
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauermann@kolabnow.com> skribis:
> I agree that guix-devel is a good place to announce new RFCs, probably
> using an eye-catching subject prefix so that we can more easily see and
> filter them.
>
> For RFCs where users are also stakeholders, we should also announce in
> places where users are likely to see them, such as the info-guix and help-
> guix mailing lists, and possibly even the Guix blog (how far out do we want
> to spread the word?).
>
> “guix shell” would have been an RFC with users as stakeholders, but I can
> imagine others where that isn’t the case, such as some significant but
> internal code reorganization.
Yes, that makes sense to me. We have to make RFCs visible to users when
they have a direct effect on them, as is the case with ‘guix shell’.
So I suppose RFCs would be at least announced on guix-devel as everyone
suggests, but additionally on info-guix or the blog when we think users
need to have the opportunity to chime in.
As zimoun wrote, a big question is formalization. I haven’t yet taken
the time to look at those other project RFC processes I mentioned, but
we should do that. Important questions are: how do we determine whether
a change is important enough to be RFC-worthy? How do we determine
whether it’s accepted or withdrawn? Perhaps that will unfold broader
questions about structuring and decision-making.
If anyone feels like giving a hand of this formalization effort, please
feel empowered to do so!
Ludo’.