Hey Greg! On Fri, Mar 06, 2026 at 12:27:43PM -0500, Greg Hogan wrote: > What if we simplified and shortened this GCD to only the changes. And > consider splitting / grouping the many changes into separate GCDs, > which would make it easier to find consensus. I am open for suggestions, but considering how much work this GCD has already been (and I feel like we're nowhere, yet) I doubt I could lead such an enlargement of this task. I could see slimmen this GCD if necessary.
> I have concerns over teams' authority over membership, This only tries to put in words how we're currently handling stuff. I may be mistaken but at least it is how I did it in my/our teams. Please help me figure out what does not work. Vague statements like this one are unfortunately no indication to me what is supposed to change or how it would be perceived more accurately. > "committers" as a team fulfilling that membership requirement, how and > by whom committers lose access, This may be a misunderstanding. The GCD's phrasing of the "committers" as a special team is only to centralize where teams are defined (in etc/teams.scm). GCD 007 does not change how commit access is granted. > the requirements for reachability, What are your concerns in this regard? > and maintenance team transitions via GCD. Same here. What are your concerns? So far acting maintainers chose new ones to join the collective. This seems somewhat odd in a kind-of-big community like ours that strives for consensus. Looking forward for your clarifications gabber
