Hi Gabriel,
On Sat, 23 May 2026 at 11:04, Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> wrote:
> - agree with me the quorum was reached (but now bend it not to be a
> binary threshold but an indication of popularity),
Sorry, where do I agree already? Because the very subject of the
message [1] before your appeal is:
Result GCD007: withdrawn (Teams, Special Teams and Memberships)
Then my reply in [2] cannot be clearer:
The final state of GCD 007 is ’withdrawn’.
And this message explicitly says, quoting: «
• the lack of quorum under the Deliberation Period,
• even a very light count after the deadline,
• so hardly reaching the quorum even after the deadline,
• getting one unresolved disagreement expressed before the
Deliberation Period,
raises a signal about the state of GCD 007, no? »
> - accuse me of "wringing" the GCD process (as if I did not follow the
> GCD's intentions) while you at the same time
Sorry if you take the comment as an accusation. I will not repeat my
messages in [1,2].
To be clear, you cannot pick a binary threshold and then let an open
time frame. The binary threshold comes with a strict deadline. Period.
Since you appeal to relax the deadline, my point in [4] is then to
imagine that such relax of time-frame would be maybe acceptable *if* the
threshold was passed by more than just only one or two person.
The numbers are:
83 team members => threshold at 20.75 and the count is 21
after the deadline.
And I don’t put on the table the one “disapprove”. I’ll not open the
box of interpretation if it’s legitimated or not, especially when it was
retracted later. That’s said, considering that only one is enough, how
many potentially others that had not been expressed?
If in good faith, you think the final state of the document has reached
a state that all the team members (lazily) agree on, then, FWIW, I think
it’s an incorrect understanding of the situation.
> - create a new deadline even though—as per *your* suggestion—we asked
> the maintainer's collective to decide upon the state of this GCD.
Sorry for being polite and let people “enough“ time to read the message.
By “enough”, I’ve picked the usual time frame of two weeks that we often
consider in the project; as used by the Deliberation Period for one
example.
So, no it’s not yet another deadline.
Quoting what I wrote in [2]:
As for all the things in Guix, the current implicit status quo appears
to me: the final word when strong disagreement is from the Maintainer
collective. Do we have a strong disagreement here about throwing the
deadlines of GCD 001?
Therefore, I conclude you strongly disagree with us (Andreas, Rutherther
and me).
Ah this is a surprise for me. Bah ok, noted. For me, this is where
this has gotten ridiculous.
> If I didn't know any better I might get the impression of some people
> powertrippin a bit, here...
Sorry, I refrain to comment on this otherwise my sarcasm might be
unhelpful. Well, I already said all in [1, 2, 3, 4] and above.
> Why will nobody answer my question what purpose defaulting to delaying
> decisions for many months or even years serves?
Sorry Gabriel but I don’t understand. We get a decision, no? The
decision is that “we” don’t agree to articulate the topic of “Teams,
Special Teams and Memberships” the way GCD 007 proposes to.
About “The Tyranny of Structurelessness”, please note that some people
here are well-aware about this. For one instance, see [5] from 2021 or
[6] from 2022 or [7] from 2023. Even, from 10 years of stories behind
Guix [8], back on 2022:
My wish for the near future is a community more structured
So I personally interpret your question as a pointless rhetorical
question.
Cheers,
simon
1: Result GCD007: withdrawn (Teams, Special Teams and Memberships)
Simon Tournier <[email protected]>
Fri, 15 May 2026 15:43:53 +0200
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-05
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
2: Re: Result GCD007: withdrawn—or is it?
Simon Tournier <[email protected]>
Tue, 19 May 2026 16:53:15 +0200
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-05
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
3: Re: GCD007: Next (last?) round of discussion.
Simon Tournier <[email protected]>
Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:42:02 +0200
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-04
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
4: Re: Result GCD007: withdrawn—or is it?
Simon Tournier <[email protected]>
Sat, 23 May 2026 02:20:03 +0200
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-05
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
5: Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes
Pierre Neidhardt <[email protected]>
Sat, 01 May 2021 11:15:56 +0200
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-05
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
6: Re: Formalizing teams
Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]>
Mon, 03 Jan 2022 16:22:22 +0100
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-01
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
7: Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches
Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]>
Wed, 15 Mar 2023 17:08:23 +0100
id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-03
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
8: https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2022/10-years-of-stories-behind-guix/
