On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 10:10 PM Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Janneke, > > Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <[email protected]> writes: > > > Cayetano Santos writes: > > > > Hi Guix! > > > >> I did a quick count of replies (please, correct me if I’m wrong): > >> > >> - 45 support (codeberg + email) > >> - 5 accept (email) > >> - 1 disapprove (email) > > > > Thanks for counting! After close and thoughtful inspection, I have > > reached a different conclusion. As a sponsor of this GCD 008 I feel > > called upon to propose this correction: > > > > - 45 support (codeberg + email) > > - 5 accept (email) > > - 0 valid disapproves > > - 1 invalid*) disapprove (email) > > > > *) Reason for invalidation: no constructive comments were made > > by this team member. > > I think this would set a very dangerous precedent. I oppose this. I > also think it's unfair to be directing all that negative > criticism/energy toward the single team member who dared disapprove this > GCD. At least I chose to stay silent but shared serious concerns about > this GCD, and I believe there *was* constructive comments from those > critical of it, not just mine , but from others as well, that had yet to > be taken into account into in the final GCD.
Normally I would agree, but [0] we can - be pedantic about votes and set the state of GCD008 to `withdrawn' and dismiss the document as is. It will be unclear if discussions will ever be picked up, where from and if we eventually, after yet-another three month nervewrecking procedure, reach consent in the form of an `accepted' GCD state. Or we could - be less strict about votes, dismiss Gabriel's disapproval (since he failed to explain where the discussion should be started from in a future round—as required by the GCD process), set GCD008's state to `accepted' and implement its innovations. [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-05/msg00193.html
