On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 12:41 PM Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 at 13:53, Greg Hogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I think we are on the same wavelength [1] about upgrading GCD 001. To
> >> do so, I propose to first draft a GCD for amending accepted GCDs.
> >
> > Why would we need a new amending GCD when we already have GCD 001? Can
> > we not simply approve changes in a GCD?
>
> Do we want to run a complete GCD for adjusting 001? For example, it
> reads:
>
> 4. Submit the GCD as a patch to `[email protected]`.
>
> which is now irrelevant. This needs to be “trivially” adjusted and we
> do not need to wait at least 30+14 days for processing such change,
> IMHO. However, we cannot modify – even trivial tweaks – without
> following an explicit process; Otherwise it soaps a slippery slope.
>
> Somehow, we need a “light” process for amending accepted GCDs. And this
> “light” process needs a GCD to be defined.
>
> Well, it’s how I understand the thing. Maybe people have a different
> opinions. Hence drafting a GCD for amending accepted GCDs seems the way
> to drive such discussion, IMHO. ;-)
In general we should not be reading the raw GCD's, these should be
incorporated into the project documentation. And the GCDs are more
guidelines than rules ("living documents" some might say), so if the
mailing list is no longer an option then we update the docs
accordingly.
The long timelines are to allow for consensus, and bypassing that we
no longer have consensus documents :)
