Hi Gabriel and Simon,
On 2026-03-25 at 15:01+01:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 10:27:12AM +0900, Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote:
> > I don't feel like voting on or discussing something if I am unaware
> > of possible viewpoints to it.
>
> I am somewhat surprised that this seems to be a prevalent position.
> People seem to feel uneasy to voice their opinions... for the lack of
> not-yet-voiced opinions by others?
I'm actually thinking the other way, i.e. I'd refrain
from commenting until I've read all other comments
to avoid repeating what's already been said and put strains
on the proposer.
On 2026-03-25 at 15:01+01:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote:
> Currently people repeatedly ask me(?) to split this into multiple
> separate GCDs (believe me, this one is enough for the foreseeable
> future) but I don't think we will get more input just by splitting them?
My thought process goes this way: say each page of proposal
generate 2 pages of discussion every week, then after 2 weeks
a 6-page proposal like this GCD 7 here would generate 30 pages
of homework. Wanting to participate in the discussion at such point
would require putting all these 30 pages in my short term memory
in a couple of sittings. Now, if there are instead 3 10-page homeworks,
I'd be much more likely to get ready to voice an informed opinion
on each proposal in separate sessions.
Of course depending on the subject it may or may not be possible
to have this optimal scenario, I'm just mentioning this
as a reminder to perhaps have _we should have pizza for dinner_
and _we should exercise next morning_ instead of _here is our timetable
for the next 24 hours in order to be healthy_, despite only the latter
has a problem statement.
On 2026-03-25 at 13:01+01:00, Simon Tournier wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2026 at 10:27, Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote:
> > 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.
>
> This is not how building a Guix Consensus Document works. It’s not
> expected from you to wait that all is on the table for you to choose
> your preference by casting a vote. Instead, it’s expected from you that
> you actively collaborate on constructing the GCD itself.
>
> Somehow, it’s not about trying to convince that this or that alternative
> is “better” but it’s about what I cannot live with in the current
> proposal.
On 2026-03-25 at 15:01+01:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote:
> Don't be shy! We're still in the exploration phase. There are no
> /wrong/ opinions or ideas (at least not for all I care).
Thanks, I'll do the homework on this, pinky promised!
On 2026-03-25 at 15:01+01:00, Gabriel Wicki wrote:
> So far nobody seems to have disapproved to the core ideas layed out in
> the GCD, concerns were all either about detailed wordings ("1 year vs.
> several months") and about misconceptions (maintainers must end their
> terms yearly).
On 2026-03-25 at 13:01+01:00, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Well, my understanding about the GCD 007 is that it clarifies the
> current “teams” and makes Maintainers a specific team.
>
> That’s said, I agree the wording must be adjusted in order to make
> clearer the outcome.
Full disclosure: I want this GCD to go forward solely for there to be
an updated list of maintainers, as currently the latest information
that is public is a Guix blog post from 2022. As I really don't want
to wait for another GCD cycle, I'd be more susceptible to forgiving
details I wouldn't necessarily agree with otherwise when voting.
(I didn't go through the entire discussion but GCD 7 at this point
does not have anything I cannot live with, just trying to point out
a consensus process should not make one thinks of game theories.)
Best wishes,
Phong
