Hello,
Am Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 11:50:05AM +0200 schrieb Gabriel Wicki:
> > I think some of my previous comments have still been addressed, but I
> > still have issues regarding some of the language used ("trusted elders",
> > "who is in charge", ...)
> I understand. If you could help me come up with more adequate/less
> difficult language I'd gladly replace the ones in question.
well, concerning language, I am not necessarily convinced by "trusted
elders" either, but as I think that a GCD is meant for the decision
taking, and that any decision should then be transposed into the manual
for reference, I am not too worried.
But on the content, I repeat my remark that the way of selecting
maintainers is not realistic. I think that a term of one year is
probably too short. In any case, given the time it takes to get a
GCD through (between two and three months, with our practice tending
towards the latter), and the energy it requires, we cannot "waste"
one GCD every year to select new maintainers, or let the current ones
go on for one more year. Also, should the maintainers simply propose a
new group? Why not let people present themselves as willing to fulfill
the role? Should we rather vote instead of trying to reach consensus?
(Since there are people involved, things are a bit trickier than on purely
technical matters. Is "I do not like X" or "I do not trust Y to further
Guix" a good motive to opppose them becoming a maintainer? Or "I prefer
X to Y"? And would I like that opinion to be recorded publicly? And
would X and Y really like to know this opinion?)
Andreas
