From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 11 21:33:23 2023 Received: (at 61894) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Mar 2023 02:33:23 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:58872 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pbBWV-00087y-FR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 21:33:23 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f179.google.com ([209.85.160.179]:35476) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pbBWT-00087j-Au for 61894@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 21:33:22 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f179.google.com with SMTP id y10so10003956qtj.2 for <61894@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 18:33:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1678588396; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zTVd98HIApp2kigN9WFg9U2mAT8RPbD/DXB3VDaRnOs=; b=IVzxMC0XgN3H0kECmaLjVi+fZGDpSXnU97sOma+GPMQEEAPT9X6k2XPdCU5IYvPwqg FR2Z2b2UYc+Feal1818liLicVN9Mkr1sKMeKVnW13qkAdLhX0fubuCKTeLMaatrlXchh +isDy92iWssP3oPaAw2DNC1JAy2hFrXSO69aKAaQbRH6PveV4gYzfN0Sk0Qx3GjvRr+b IU4G7mhCBY8s0vRRWs61I+SRi4/BGckSF6zDkrnYVtoIE0vP6Cnlr6TUavVbCQ7nJzV9 zGuept4/qvqj0bqj0KePbi5OeQ1lJU6nLVmIsEi4qc6SjEH6AYSo6b+2vvBdKZvkFeyP rpiA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1678588396; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zTVd98HIApp2kigN9WFg9U2mAT8RPbD/DXB3VDaRnOs=; b=Bi90zjpP9kHgXY5U9sJ1UgBLykT+Hx3m1okq3cE7rnco4Yxa2ZYM5DR44+xhSQYBhw cUALja5N94E5atlhGYHjuvgK4quHJWnx8ZB0BWiBCNsxcie6COau3If0JNbgtG8RZOzS tO16jDvY3eg7RNeZLRokMG7sD8ca93gH9k8PGkVyQCF03tNOybGGp07ZJ501MpLBkVgB RgV0ZUPz89tLTqwLf5uL/sqxzxKukBVxojFKtVwkvqib+YvX7eP/noL/SaXQ5c4zAAMz tNWBK03Ig7iNtWMZALEl73IHHS/BEx6rlm/9HK2W8m9jq/Ttsvt+cCBF/h+l6tK8Zxfl CIJQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKVszhrSAElON/QE7KJYIvBlkJn4mMosjBV27KW3Lm+FKEQwsWNF y6jy/XPDCRYC0NqZW1DN0E0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set+TQYROO2jofZ8oSDABc6mHisFGz/8l3vC4YZJaqFrLAPu/C9NAAS6cp1/tb8BDiI93WteOBQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:118b:b0:3bf:d1ba:daec with SMTP id m11-20020a05622a118b00b003bfd1badaecmr49171680qtk.16.1678588395852; Sat, 11 Mar 2023 18:33:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from hurd ([2607:fad8:4:3::1000]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l6-20020a37f906000000b0073b3316bbd0sm2791620qkj.29.2023.03.11.18.33.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 11 Mar 2023 18:33:15 -0800 (PST) From: Maxim Cournoyer To: Felix Lechner Subject: Re: bug#61894: [PATCH RFC] Team approval for patches References: <878rgga1qv.fsf@inria.fr> <871qm8wf8e.fsf@cbaines.net> <87r0u86qgo.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87y1o9mina.fsf_-_@envs.net> <861qm0da4y.fsf@gmail.com> <87sfegwh28.fsf@gmail.com> <878rg7uqb4.fsf@gmail.com> <86lek6ntpb.fsf@gmail.com> <874jqtte7c.fsf@gmail.com> <87bkl0frnk.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2023 21:33:13 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Felix Lechner's message of "Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:22:56 -0800") Message-ID: <878rg2r95i.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 61894 Cc: guix-maintainers@gnu.org, Simon Tournier , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , Christopher Baines , 61894@debbugs.gnu.org, =?utf-8?B?5a6L5paH5q2m?= , Andreas Enge , guix-devel@gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Felix, Felix Lechner writes: > Hi Ludo', > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 9:22=E2=80=AFAM Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> >> Like you I=E2=80=99m glad collaboration is nice and friendly; yet, over = the past >> few months I=E2=80=99ve experienced misunderstandings that seemingly bro= ke the >> consensus-based process that has always prevailed. > > I have no idea what happened there, but it may be best to be open and > direct about it. Would it be helpful for everyone to share details? It may help to shed a bit of light on the original reason I think this change came into existence, and in the interest of transparency and hopefully improving or finding alternatives to the proposed change, I consent to Ludovic openly discussing it, even if it involves a healthy dose of critique and looking inward. > Although you know that already, it would be best to avoid accusations > and look inward with statements like "I was unhappy about ... because > of ...." I might also avoid the word "you" and instead address all > messages to a third party. [...] > Also, why not retitle the bug as "Restore and improve our > consensus-based process"? I think this captures well what one of the issues I see with this change: it seems to be an attempt to resolve a local conflict (?) by apply a new global policy (which could be OK if the problem was widespread, but I doubt it is?), making everyone pay for it (via added bureaucracy). I've also pointed that if this is what it's trying to fix, it won't really help, since policy is not a substitute to consensus, and we're the same pool of people who will need to get along, whether as committers or as members of the same team. --=20 Thanks, Maxim