Hello, Am Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 11:28:19AM -0400 schrieb Greg Hogan: > > I think you put it very mildly; the real problem of our current process > > is that it apparently has turned into "no releases"... This for me is > > the most important motivation for this GCD, we need some momentum to > > turn around this inertia. > The GCD process is not designed for building momentum but rather for > agreeing on significant changes. From GCD 001:
hm, I do not get your point. Of course it is not the *process* of submitting this GCD that is supposed to generate momentum, but the *result* of the GCD (in case it gets accepted) that should generate momentum to reach releases. > """The GCD process is a mechanism to determine whether a proposed > change is *significant* enough to require attention from the community > at large and if so, to provide a documented way to bring about broad > community discussion and to collectively decide on the proposal. > > A change may be deemed *significant* when it could only be reverted at > a high cost or, for technical changes, when it has the potential to > disrupt user scripts and programs or user workflows.""" > > What from GCD 005 is significant by this definition? If I follow this definition in the second paragraph, then this GCD proposal is not significant; it can be reverted at low to zero cost. On the other hand, I think that putting into place a process for releases is a significant change; and since there are several ways of getting to a release, it is good to have a community discussion and to collectively decide. My conclusion would rather be that the definition of "significant change" in GCD 001 is a bit too narrow. For instance, I would include organisational change in the Guix project also as significant, even if it could easily be reverted. Do you have a different suggestion to end up with more regular releases? Or do you think that regular releases are not desirable? Andreas
