Hi, On 2026-03-24 at 15:57+01:00, Simon Tournier wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2026 at 20:59, Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > > On 2026-03-18 at 17:03+01:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote: > > > AFAICT we need to agree on the following: > > > - [...] maintainers appoint new ones [...] > > > - [...] revoke someone else's team membership [...] > > > - I guess we all agree [on GCD 001] > > > - How is dissent resolved [...] > > > > Watching this discussion from a far, I suggest splitting this GCD > > into at least three well-scoped documents > > For you, what would be the split?
If I understand GCD correctly as documenting something we agree on. Gabriel mentioned three things we need to agree on (four if we count the question for GCD 1 clarification, but it seems that was resolved down the thread), so naturally I suppose there can be separate proposals addressing each of them: - How are new maintainers appointed? - How is someone's team membership revoked? - How is dissent resolved? TBH I've been struggling to keep up with the discussion of this GCD 7. I don't feel like voting on or discussing something if I am unaware of possible viewpoints to it. Perhaps it would help if the document contains lists of alternatives and why they are not prefered. I thought it would also help if each proposal tries to address one particular matter (single-subject rule). Not only that eases the homework overhead, voters also wouldn't be present with an all-or-nothing trade-off between progress and some subjectively suboptimal decision(s). Cheers, Phong
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
