Replying to guix-devel again, as this is much easier to handle I think. (I wonder if we need to change the GCD process in this sense, a discussion on the web interface of Codeberg is complicated.)
Am Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 12:30:50PM +0100 schrieb gabber: > Now you confuse me. You first say: > the passive/active distinction, which is new and IMO unnecessary (or at > least I don't understand the intended goal); > and then > Regarding expectations to reach committers on specific channels: I agree > this could be a nice addition; this is kinda implicit in the revocation > rule that mentions "inactivity", but explicit is better than implicit. > > "Passive" or probably better: "inactive" committers are people on leave, > vacation, illness, busy with other kinds of work ($dayjob, care work, etc). > This is not the same as revocation candidates. > > How would you define our expectations towards committers WRT communication > channels? I thought about that quite a while and figured we need to > distinguish > active/passive committers, because we can't expect people wandering the > jungles > or exploring antarctica to read guix-devel on a daily basis. Penny for your > thoughts? Maybe this has become clear from my mail to guix-devel yesterday. I still have trouble understanding what this distinction would mean in practice. So "active" committers are expected to react quickly, "passive" ones not? How is this determined and by whom? So when a committer is ill or wandering Antarctica, it is okay if they do not react; if they are just lazy it is not okay? Are they supposed to declare a state of justified passiveness, and who will agree or disagree that this is acceptable? > Please note that the "removal of revocation provisions" is not part of the > current version of this GCD. As of your suggestion(s) I added the relevant > bullet-points to the Committers section. Hm, I do not see this in your just pushed commit "007: Refine wording."; is it not yet pushed? > But since this seems to be a source of > confusion: IMO this GCD is not supposed to include any and all rulings WRT > roles and memberships but to adequately and generally define what roles exist > and how they interact with the project and each other. > I am deliberately lax with the specific "rulings", since rules are subject to > change and the GCD process is relatively slow and (if I may add) exhausting. I > don't it would be grave mistake to specify things here only to lack work-force > to change details in a future GCD. I think I also replied to this in my mail yesterday; it appears we have very (fundamentally?) different understandings of the roles of GCDs. I think they should contain precise stipulations and rules and not just wishlist items of what people should do in their different roles. Since it is a slow and exhausting process, it is even more important to make tangible progress on our governance (which this GCD also does, for instance it contains new rules on the maintainer team). I am not sure how to bridge this! Maybe it would be helpful if other people chimed in. Andreas
