Hi Gabber, On 2026-04-29 at 15:47+02:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > The passage reads: > > > Teams are expected to be reachable > > Which *does not* imply that every team member must be reachable through > either of these channels. I'll leave it that way for now, or should I > clarify that not *team members* are meant? I figure this is rather > clear with the current wording. WDYT?
That's fine to me then (i.e. something I can live with). I suppose after GCD is accepted, team email aliases can be implemented. On 2026-04-29 at 15:47+02:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > ... is there some end missing to that last phrase? Sorry, I tried to get the reply and quote to flow together, i.e. _Since it's to "ensures that [...]". On 2026-04-29 at 15:47+02:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > Nguyễn Gia Phong writes: > > > Active committers should be informed about ongoing discussions > > > with a frequency of at least 7 days. > > > > I do not think this is possible even if we only count guix-devel > > for the discussions. Since it's to > > > > ensures that all active committers take note and can respect > > > imposed restrictions that are taken by other committers > > > (like a push freeze to the `master` branch prior to a release). > > > > I suggest requiring commiters to be informed of the outcome > > of such discussions, e.g. guix-info. There are decisions > > one may have no interest in discussing and just go with > > whatever that is decided. > > It is ok not to read evey post in every thread on guix-devel, but > committers should know *what* is being discussed and—when necessary—know > how the discussions (and their outcome) affects their responsibilities > as committers (the example being master branch freeze towards the end in > a release cycle). The only way to know the content of discussions is reading them (subjects are inaccurate, etc.), exhaustively doing which IMHO is an unreasonable demand. Once again I request replacing _ongoing discussions_ with _collective decisions_ or something of a similar meaning (and perhaps designate the channel commiters can subscribe to for such news). Discussions can happen in many places, being aware of all of them is an impossible task. If you're worried about decisions can't be made without committers knowing of and consenting to them, the mentioned news channel can be used to point to discussions in need of consensus. In brief, we can't put the responsibility of filtering the high-volume communication channels on individuals. If every committer is required to scan through every message, I'd start and participate a lot less because I don't want to be burdening many others with more homework. On 2026-04-29 at 15:47+02:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > the indoubtedly most discussed section in the GCD I'm fine with _passive committer_ being defined. I still find the human state machine confusing, but it does not affect me. On 2026-04-29 at 15:47+02:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > Nguyễn Gia Phong writes: > > How about > > > > > before pushing changes to protected branches, commiters must > > > be updated with the relevant decisions that are announced in [...] > > "must be updated" asks: By whom? Committers need to inform themselves > and stay up-to-date in regular intervals. I don't think this section > can be easily simplified without losing any of the intended meanings. I'm not a native speaker, so perhaps s/be/become/? What I meant to say is if a committer does not push anything for two weeks, then it makes zero difference whether it was a passive period where the updating is done at the end, or an active one with multiple updates. But again, it makes no practical difference, so I'm fine with it. On 2026-04-29 at 15:47+02:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > > - The commiter's OpenPGP fingerprint is added to the > > .guix-authorizations file of the branch(es) they will commit to. > > This is an exact quote of the manual (Commit Access) > and an integral part of the filing of new committers. Thanks, I missed that. Overall, I'm fine with the current draft, except for > Active committers should be informed about ongoing discussions Using your own words perhaps the two sentences can be squeezed into > Each active committer should be informed within 7 days > of restrictions imposed by other committers (like [...]). Best wishes, Phong
