Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Guix, Now that the results are out, I just wanted to thank Liliana for starting this GCD, and everyone else who contributed to the effort and supported/accepted. I would have been too intimidated to broach such a controversial topic; and even if I could get over that fear, the amount of effort

Re: Practical consensus building, was: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Leo, On Thu, May 08 2025, Leo Famulari wrote: > [if] we had two of these [...] and took their responsibilities as > facilitators very seriously. Based on my reading of the group dynamics, you, futurile, nckx, or ieure would all have favorable personalities for that role (and others, too). So

Re: Practical consensus building, was: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 12:12:04PM +, reza wrote: > 4. To also hear "quiet" voices, rounds are initiated where each member > comments on the issue without comments from the others (this may be hard > to achieve via email) Really interesting idea. > 5. Several rounds may be used before finding

Re: Practical consensus building, was: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi reza, Thanks for your thoughtful comment. reza writes: > 1. Consensus building needs necessary conditions to be met before > starting, this is not mentioned in the GCD process and should probably > be checked before every GCD The GCD process refers to

Re: Practical consensus building, was: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hello, Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 12:12:04PM + schrieb reza: > I was reading this very insightful article about practical consensus > building [1] and have noted some short comings and differences from the > GCDs in process and wanted to list them here for discussion: I think several of your poi

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On 5 May, Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution. wrote: > Hi Steve, > > On Mon, May 05 2025, Steve George wrote: > > > Voting result: > > - 45% (22 votes) voted to pass the GCD > > - 14% voted to disapprove > > - 41% abstained by not voting > > > > This

Practical consensus building, was: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hello, I was reading this very insightful article about practical consensus building [1] and have noted some short comings and differences from the GCDs in process and wanted to list them here for discussion: 1. Consensus building needs necessary conditions to be met before starting, this is not

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hello, I see much discussion of the deliberation, framed as a vote, but that’s not what it is. I think mentions of votes, opposition, veto, and similar phrases miss the point. The deliberation is meant as a way to get a clear understanding of what people have said and done before—a show of hands

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi, I think we should continue to discuss and develop our understanding of what "consensus decision-making" means for this project. It would be nice to do that on a thread that isn't connected to this GCD so that the two areas aren't intertwined. Steve / Futurile On 5 May, Vagrant Cascadian

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hello Andreas, On 2025-05-06 07:55, Andreas Enge wrote: So that a motion does not pass, one either needs 1 person to disapprove (which is a strong veto right), or 75% to not reply (which is a very high barrier). Andreas I would assert that providing veto functionality within such a large

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hello Felix, Am Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:12:25PM -0700 schrieb Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution.: > Please forgive me for chiming in. I am an outsider and don't care one > way or the other, but the standard for approval seems high. > It may not be wise, or

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On 2025-05-05, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:12:25PM -0700, Felix Lechner via Development of > GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution. wrote: >> [...] the other, but the standard for approval seems high. > > Yes, the standard could not be higher, but this is a consensus proces

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 06:12:25PM -0700, Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution. wrote: > [...] the other, but the standard for approval seems high. Yes, the standard could not be higher, but this is a consensus process, not a democratic process. By definition,

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Steve, On Mon, May 05 2025, Steve George wrote: > Voting result: > - 45% (22 votes) voted to pass the GCD > - 14% voted to disapprove > - 41% abstained by not voting > > This GCD is withdrawn as it didn't achieve full consensus: > > "The GCD is accepted if (1) at least 25% of all team

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi all, I collated the results from the voting on GCD003. Voting by members: - 49 people in the voting pool - 29 votes in total - 10 Support, 12 Accept - 7 Disapprove - Declarations by observers (people not in teams): - 5 declarations in total - 2 Support - 2 Accept - 1 Disapprov

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I support -- (Life is like a pencil that will surely run out, but will leave the beautiful writing of life) (D4F09EB110177E03C28E2FE1F5BBAE1E0392253F (hkp://keys.openpgp.org)) signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I support -- Efraim Flashner אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I support. I did note thoughtful comments from some people who support the goal of renaming but have concerns about implementation specifics. I hope constructive suggestions to improve implementation will be welcome (though I don't have any myself), but I especially support making this change n

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I disapprove. On 21 April 2025 14:07:14 GMT, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: >Hi Guix, > >as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion >period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some >changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg

Re: About GCD process, consensus and derailment (was Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started)

Hi Simon, qua 23 abr 2025 às 17:44:39 (1745441079), zimon.touto...@gmail.com enviou: > Hi Vagrant, all, > > On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 11:58, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > > > The nature of (at least some of) those responses were largely a negation > > that left little room to discuss how to move forw

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I accept

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Liliana Marie Prikler skribis: > Hi Guix, > > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), but barring any emergency change

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I accept. On Mon Apr 21, 2025 at 4:07 PM CEST, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), b

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Liliana Marie Prikler writes: > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), but barring any emergency changes there, GCD 00

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I support. On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 16:07, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > > Hi Guix, > > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeber

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi, I disapprove the current state of the GCD; although I sponsor the GCD and I think renaming from master to main is the right direction. IMHO, the section Motivations would require a complete revamp and technical bits need more adjustments. I hope we will be able to revisit this proposal in th

About GCD process, consensus and derailment (was Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started)

Hi Vagrant, all, On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 at 11:58, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: > The nature of (at least some of) those responses were largely a negation > that left little room to discuss how to move forward, which left me at > an impass as to how to even continue the discussion. > > Only in retrospec

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On Mon, 21 Apr 2025 22:07:14 +0800, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > > Hi Guix, > > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one)

Re: [bug#76407] Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Liliana, seg 21 abr 2025 às 16:07:14 (1745262434), liliana.prik...@gmail.com enviou: > Hi Guix, > > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 0

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On 21 Apr, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > Hi Guix, > > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), but barring any emergenc

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I accept.

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Liliana, Liliana Marie Prikler writes: Hi Guix, as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg one), but barring any emergency

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I support, because main is a better name and the cost will be handled well. Despite and not because renaming sends a political message, specifically Ekaitz wrote : 3. I don't think the change will make the project more inclusive, but may be c

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Ludo' On Mon, Apr 21 2025, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I’m curious how else this could be handled Vagrant will surely repond better than I can, but just to get the ball rolling: Debian has a mandated "further discussion" (FD) option, which was somehow renamed to "none of the above" (NOTA). [1]

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Liliana Marie Prikler writes: > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), but barring any emergency changes there, GCD 0

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi, Vagrant Cascadian writes: > Only in retrospect of having encountered this situation did I realize > there is a fundamental flaw in the GCD process (at least in my > opinion)... in that there is a presumption of moving forward and > accepting the proposed changes (in some capacity), rather th

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

On 2025-04-21, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg > one), but barring any emergency changes

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

“I accept” On 2025-04-21 14:07, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: Hi Guix, as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg one), but barring

Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I disapprove

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I support. - Dave

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I disapprove. -- Christopher Howard

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I accept. Liliana Marie Prikler ezt írta (időpont: 2025. ápr. 21., H, 16:07): > > Hi Guix, > > as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion > period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some > changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the

Re: Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

I accept. -- Ricardo

Deliberation period for GCD 003 "Rename the default branch" has technically started

Hi Guix, as the date for the GCD 003 was set to February 18th, the discussion period actually ended on Saturday already. I have incorporated some changes on Sunday to realign the proposal with GCD 002 (the Codeberg one), but barring any emergency changes there, GCD 003 is now to be considered fin