Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

Hi, On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 at 01:26, Suhail Singh wrote: > "Shepherd", imo, is a better name. The current wording is “sponsor” which is good too. :-) Cheers, simon

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

Simon Tournier writes: > During the Discussion Period, we discuss, all. The aim of Supporter is > to keep the RFC on track. Especially, to let space and time to all to > express their voice. Nix names this Role: Shepherd. Maybe it captures > better the idea. > > Then during the Deliberation P

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

On +2025-01-09 18:33:16 +0100, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 at 11:40, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > Yes, would be nice if some of you reading this could offer to become > > “supporters”. > > [...] > > > Please take a look, comment, offer your name as a “supporter”, and th

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

Hi, On Tue, 07 Jan 2025 at 11:40, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Yes, would be nice if some of you reading this could offer to become > “supporters”. [...] > Please take a look, comment, offer your name as a “supporter”, and then > make your voice heard during the deliberation period! I think we ne

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Even better if we can finalize before Guix Days so: > > discussion period ending on Jan. 14th > deliberation period ending on Jan. 28th > > How does that sound? I have commented on the issue. If my request to be a supporter is accepted, I support the above amendmen

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation (v5)

Hello Guix! Simon Tournier skribis: > Below the updated version (v5) of the RFC introducing the RFC process. > > The submission is: . And now v6! https://issues.guix.gnu.org/74736#27 > Well, a very good lesson is: Co-supporter is very important! It helps