Hey! On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 06:28:11PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Discussion is at least 30 days and at most 60 days: > > https://consensus.guix.gnu.org/gcd/001-gcd-process.html > > I think the discussion period officially started on Feb. 27 when a > sponsor was found: > <https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/11#issuecomment-11059085>. > > So it will end, at your option, between March 27 and April 27. I know about the proposed timelines, but I am in doubt we should cut-off an ongoing debate just because the magical time-limit was reached. What benefit could that possibly bring? The discussion phase of this GCD is alive and well—we're still figuring out the scope and necessity of the GCD.
> > - Should we try to keep the current model of inheriting the Maintainer > > role (maintainers appoint new ones)? How would we adequately phrase > > that? > > The minimum change that I think would improve on the status quo is > fixed-term mandates (forcing rotation to happen after X months). I don't think I (so far) intended to write anything like that. My proposal of re-approving the maintainers collective was not intended to force anyone out of a position they are willing to go on doing (and are good in). In my experience, volunteer run project always lack (capable) worker, not the other way around. Getting people to think about ending their mandates without shame on the other hand also seems rather essential. > > - Who can revoke someone else's team membership? For what reason(s)? > > How? > > As currently documented (info "(guix) Teams"), it’s either when the > person quits or when they’ve been inactive for one year or more. Yes. But who removes them? The other team members? Do they take a vote/reach consensus/the one with commit access just does it? We have (probably, still; or at least had) single-member teams, teams without committers. Does the general public (other team members? committers? maintainers collective? consensus reached on guix-devel?) eventually decide that a team is not necessary anymore and dissolve it? I am grateful for any and all input to these questions as they might help us finding adequate wordings... > I think we should at least keep these two reasons (which are missing in > the current GCD007 draft), but perhaps we can add more. I'll add the former—the latter has been part of GCD007 since March 4th. > > - I guess we all agree that generally in our project decisions are made > > by finding consensus. Should we write that down for all the roles or > > maybe as a general rule outside of the roles? > > It’s already written: > > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Making-Decisions.html > https://consensus.guix.gnu.org/gcd/001-gcd-process.html True! So shall I omit any of that in GCD007 since it would be redundant? > These documents are “binding”. As true as that may be, they build on top of not-that-well-defined terminology. What is meant by consensus, for example? Speaking from experience, agreement through exhaustion is not what I think a project like ours should strive for. I was asking this WRT roles. Since GCD007 describes some sort of hierarchy, maybe it is important to explicitly state that the final goal with all conflict is to reach a state of mutual agreement? And also—maybe—to lay out a way to help arguing parties out of their blockade. Maybe a conflict-resultion team would be nice? Some sort of ombudsman? Disagreement should not escalate to the point where we reach out to the maintainers to have them scold or exclude the other party. If we do not lay out processes and ways to resolve conflict, we are bound for essential crises whenever major drama emerges. > > - How is dissent resolved in each of the roles (teams, committers, > > maintainers)? Do we have, should we introduce and how do we write > > down according procedures? > > > > Examples being: differences among committers (which change is the > > best), among team members, between teams, etc. > > This is already documented as being addressed by seeking consensus and I > think it has worked well for almost 15 years (it’s not perfect: some > issues get ignored, too.) WDYM "being addressed by seeking consensus" mean in this context? I am sure we all are constantly trying to seek consensus, but this does not prevent us from disagreeing. I fear this is not the best attitude to prepare for the future. We are growing constantly and conflict is bound to emerge. If we fail to handle these situations we will lose valid members, have our prosperous community tainted with bad blood and—in the worst case—drown in our own drama. Just because we may not (all) take note of social trouble(s) does not mean it does not exist. Thank you for your input—enjoy your weekend! gabber
