Hi Gabriel,
On Fri, 03 Apr 2026 at 16:07, Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> wrote:
> I once again ask any and all of you to read it with the request for
> comments. By now I figured that I prefer responses via email, but using
> the codeberg infrastructure is ok as well.
Well, I’ve read, re-read, and read again, not only the GCD, also the
whole discussion.
Maybe I overlook, from my understanding, some concerns aren’t addressed.
And the GCD is very long touching several topics so it’s hard to find an
agreement on all at once, IMHO.
For one example:
> ### Maintainers
> #### Approval
>
> - The maintenance team crafts a yearly addendum to a GCD to approve
> their next terms in the group they feel fittest for the task.
>
> Anyone can apply to join the maintainer's collective at any time by
> reaching out to them (see below).
>
> - Should serious issues emerge, the maintainer's collective can be
> (partially) replaced by a GCD.
Here I disagree and from my understanding, Andreas is also disagreeing,
maybe others. Aside it’s not doable in practise, neither to run a GCD
each year, neither to have a one-year rotation, IMHO, it’s not what
appears to me the best for the Guix project, considering the past
experience.
For sure, there is many hard work put inside in this GCD and many very
valuable discussions that already happened. However, IMHO, we have not
reached the state where people agree on all the parts of the document; I
don’t, e.g., as I pointed one piece where I currently disagree, others
are pointing another part.
What I fear is to either not reach the quorum for the Deliberation
Period, either to get “disapprove”.
What I propose is to (temporarily) withdraw the GCD. Quoting GCD 001:
Authors may withdraw their GCD at any time; they can resubmit it
again later (under a new GCD number).
Why? Because we are running out of time and some aspects still need
discussions. The aim of this bounded-time is indeed to deal with this
situation when the proposal opens a ramification that does not fit. In
such case, the conclusion isn’t a rejection but the need of a GCD
reorganisation based on the discussions for handling the ramification;
potentially leading to the creation to more than only one GCD.
BTW, please note that any discussion might happen outside any GCD
process. And such discussion might prepare the very GCD. Somehow, the
main aim of the GCD process is to make a decision, and the Discussion
Period might be seen as a period for being sure we all understand the
same way the document and thus potentially amend it for reaching such
common understanding.
I know all the effort it requires to run a GCD process and, for what
this comment is worth, I appreciate very much that you have open this
can and how all this is going. From my point of view, it’s on rails but
there is too much cans at once for only one hand. As you, I still think
the Guix project needs clarifications about its social structure.
Based on this work, I propose to temporarily withdraw then come back
with specific GCDs dealing with one topic at a time. Explicitly, I
propose to withdraw for reworking all this and then open one (or more)
new GCD.
WDYT?
Cheers,
simon
