Hello! Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> skribis:
> Well, I think it is fair to say that there are some aspects of the GCD > process that need adjustment! Agreed! And also we need to communicate more about what it is and what it’s not (esp. the fact that it’s not a vote!). > * several cycles of calling for consensus Yes, I found that it helped to announce “version 2” and “version 3” to give a heads-up to people who hadn’t been able to follow closely. I’m not sure whether/how we can formalize this sort of intermediate milestone. Maybe the process document can just encourage that? > * A serious concern is what blocks consensus, not the person [...] > To this end, I would like to propose that concerns are (eventually) > raised as pull requests, patches or issues in some formalized process. [...] > * Every GCD as a separate project > > I envision each GCD as a new project for the initial draft, which is a > reference from which to submit issues and/or pull requests, I agree that this would help. The best approximation I could do was to record acknowledgments and provenance info in commit messages, but that’s obviously not as clear, and in particular it makes it harder to see if outstanding concerns were left unaddressed. Using issues/pull requests for this sounds like an improvement. > * word choices I’m fine with “reject” and maybe “conclusion” (?) for the final phase. :-) Perhaps we can set up an informal working group to prepare an update to the process? Thanks, Ludo’.
