Hello Steve,

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 08:56:08AM +0100, Steve George wrote:
> One thing I've realised since we agreed the GCD process is that a lot of ours
> seem to be on deeply emotional and divisive subjects. I'm not sure why that 
> is.
> I was expecting GCD's on package naming, instead we've landed up with ones 
> that
> cover some of the greatest philosophical, emotional, social and political
> discussions of our times!

that feels rather natural to me. I suspect that nobody cares about
package naming apart from me, and it is a solved problem - well, if any
issue occurs, we can probably just agree on a reasonable technical
solution, add it to the manual and be done with it.

We need a GCD when the topic is divisive, with several quite differing
opinions that need to somehow be brought together.

And is this not also implicit in the consensus framing? GCD 001 does not
give a very strong definition of "I disapprove" apart from "opposes the
implementation of the proposal", but there are more details in this
document:
   https://www.seedsforchange.org.uk/shortconsensus#agreement
from which, I think, our motivation comes from.

Block: A block always stops a proposal from going ahead. It expresses a 
fundamental objection. It isn’t “I don’t really like it,” or “I liked the other 
idea better.” Some groups say the block means "I'll need to leave the group if 
this goes ahead". The group can either start work on a new proposal, or look 
for amendments to overcome the objection. In cases where the block stems from a 
fundamental disagreement with the aims of the group it might be more 
appropriate for the individual to leave.

Implicitly, our interpretation seems to have been that disapproval means
"I'll need to leave the group if this goes ahead".

I find it unlikely that anybody will feel the need to leave Guix because
they do not like our package naming scheme... So it is natural that
questions with lower stakes are handled outside the GCD process. (This
is further helped by the efforts an author needs to spend on a GCD
and its discussion.)

Andreas


Reply via email to