On 2025-04-21, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), but barring any emergency changes there, GCD 003 is now to be > considered final. > > As outlined in GCD 001, please respond to this mail with one of the > following: > > - “I support”, meaning that you support the proposal; > - “I accept”, meaning that you consent to the implementation of the > proposal; > - “I disapprove”, meaning that you oppose the implementation of the > proposal.
I accept. ...with reservations... While I initially had been inclined to "support" this as an issue of little consequence that would be simple enough to move forward with, there were some very strongly contrary responses that I feel went essentially unresolved. The nature of (at least some of) those responses were largely a negation that left little room to discuss how to move forward, which left me at an impass as to how to even continue the discussion. Only in retrospect of having encountered this situation did I realize there is a fundamental flaw in the GCD process (at least in my opinion)... in that there is a presumption of moving forward and accepting the proposed changes (in some capacity), rather than maintaining the status quo. E.g. a person has to propose improvements in order to reject the proposal, but there is nowhere in the process that handles a fundamental disagreement about the proposal in any form. This is contrary to any other genuine consensus process I have worked with. Which... is certainly out of scope for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch", but because it is a clear example of a flaw of this GCD process, figured it was worth noting. live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
