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

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

Hi, Below the updated version (v5) of the RFC introducing the RFC process. The submission is: . Well, a very good lesson is: Co-supporter is very important! It helps in crossing the final line. :-) In other words, the Timeline had not been respected at all

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hi Ricardo, On mer., 20 déc. 2023 at 12:49, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > I just got back from travels and finally caught up with important email. > I read the proposal and it looks good to me. Thank you for working on > this! > > This would be the first project I contribute to that has an RFC proces

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hi Simon, > Well, more than 7 weeks later… Hum, does it mean that the Guix project > is not interested in formalizing some RFC? > > WDYT about the proposal? I just got back from travels and finally caught up with important email. I read the proposal and it looks good to me. Thank you for worki

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hi, Well, more than 7 weeks later… Hum, does it mean that the Guix project is not interested in formalizing some RFC? WDYT about the proposal? On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 at 12:14, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > This is a proposal for implementing Request-For-Comment process. > Comment are welcome in

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hi Efraim, Thnaks for your comments. On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 09:04, Efraim Flashner wrote: > Actually, in terms of suggestions, I'd add the rfc/ folder in > etc/teams.scm to set guix-devel as one of the team members. Good idea! Cheers, simon

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

On Tue, Oct 31, 2023 at 12:14:42PM +0100, Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi, > > This is a proposal for implementing Request-For-Comment process. > Comment are welcome in #66844 [1]: > > 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/66844 > > > The proposal is highly inspired by Rust RFC: > > https://

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Simon Tournier skribis: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 16:03, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> Thanks for starting the discussion! I think that getting such a process >> in place is key to sustain friction-less development of Guix, giving >> everyone a chance to have their voice heard. > > Do you have com

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hi Ludo, Thanks for giving a look. On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 16:03, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Thanks for starting the discussion! I think that getting such a process > in place is key to sustain friction-less development of Guix, giving > everyone a chance to have their voice heard. Do you have c

Re: Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hello, Simon Tournier skribis: > This is a proposal for implementing Request-For-Comment process. > Comment are welcome in #66844 [1]: > > 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/66844 Thanks for starting the discussion! I think that getting such a process in place is key to sustain friction-

Request-For-Comment process: concrete implementation

Hi, This is a proposal for implementing Request-For-Comment process. Comment are welcome in #66844 [1]: 1: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/66844 The proposal is highly inspired by Rust RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs and also by GHC Haskell proposal process [1] and Nix RFC pr