Hi Greg, Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis:
> On Fri, May 29, 2026 at 4:11 AM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: > [...] >> To me, “the proposal” is what’s under “Detailed Design”; the >> “Motivation” section is not a proposal in any sense of the word. >> >> Now, we could always prepare a GCD (!) to clarify this if people find it >> ambiguous, but of course it’s going to take a couple of months to land. > > Is this ambiguous? It's Guix Consensus *Document*. As with the > detailed design, we can work towards consensus on the motivation. The > author(s) (and sponsors) are expected to be active participants during > the discussion period and they have ample opportunity to present > personal motivation then or when submitting the GCD. > > Ludo', I see that you were a sponsor on GCD 003. I believe that > document would have been accepted but for the author's decision to > forego suggested narrowing changes to the motivation. GCD 007 played > out similarly. Why is the non-consensus motivation so important to > authors? How is that more important than the design and > implementation? We can, and do, discuss the motivation—in fact that’s what most of the GCD 008 discussion has been focusing on so far. My point is that at the end of the day, when we accept a GCD, what gets implemented is what the “Detailed Design” section describes. Ludo’.
