Greg Hogan <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 12:41 PM Simon Tournier <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Greg, >> >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2025 at 13:53, Greg Hogan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I think we are on the same wavelength [1] about upgrading GCD 001. To >> >> do so, I propose to first draft a GCD for amending accepted GCDs. >> > >> > Why would we need a new amending GCD when we already have GCD 001? Can >> > we not simply approve changes in a GCD? >> >> Do we want to run a complete GCD for adjusting 001? For example, it >> reads: >> >> 4. Submit the GCD as a patch to `[email protected]`. >> >> which is now irrelevant. This needs to be “trivially” adjusted and we >> do not need to wait at least 30+14 days for processing such change, >> IMHO. However, we cannot modify – even trivial tweaks – without >> following an explicit process; Otherwise it soaps a slippery slope. >> >> Somehow, we need a “light” process for amending accepted GCDs. And this >> “light” process needs a GCD to be defined. >> >> Well, it’s how I understand the thing. Maybe people have a different >> opinions. Hence drafting a GCD for amending accepted GCDs seems the way >> to drive such discussion, IMHO. ;-) > > In general we should not be reading the raw GCD's, these should be > incorporated into the project documentation. And the GCDs are more > guidelines than rules ("living documents" some might say), so if the > mailing list is no longer an option then we update the docs > accordingly. > > The long timelines are to allow for consensus, and bypassing that we > no longer have consensus documents :)
I strongly agree - GCDs are necessary for "large" decisions/changes, but I think they ought to be seen as historical documents, there's no need to amend those after the fact. Instead, we should just "merge" the processes described in GCDs (with a mention of the GCD) into documentation. Then, updating "send an email to patches@" to "open a PR" is clearly a small change to a process, which does not require a GCD and which does not require an earlier GCD to be amended. In fact, I'd say that this wouldn't even be a change to the process, but a matter of updating the documentation to reflect changes that have already happened. Kind regards, pinoaffe
