On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 2:31 PM Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> wrote: > > Am Sat, Jun 07, 2025 at 01:03:10PM +0100 schrieb Steve George: > > One way to consider that risk is to think about whether a GCD is > > irreversible (a one-day door). Trying 'regular releases' is not a one-way > > door. We can try it out, and if it turns out that we can't manage it as a > > project we'll simply fall back to our current process of irregular releases. > > I think you put it very mildly; the real problem of our current process > is that it apparently has turned into "no releases"... This for me is > the most important motivation for this GCD, we need some momentum to > turn around this inertia.
The GCD process is not designed for building momentum but rather for agreeing on significant changes. From GCD 001: """The GCD process is a mechanism to determine whether a proposed change is *significant* enough to require attention from the community at large and if so, to provide a documented way to bring about broad community discussion and to collectively decide on the proposal. A change may be deemed *significant* when it could only be reverted at a high cost or, for technical changes, when it has the potential to disrupt user scripts and programs or user workflows.""" What from GCD 005 is significant by this definition? Greg
