Hi, On Wed, 27 May 2026 17:34:59 +0200 Simon Tournier <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Be sure it’s well hear. And shared! > > Well, look: GCD 006 then GCD 007 with an overlap with GCD 006, > and now GCD 008. Wow, that’s a lot of readings! Who is still able to > read a novel over the past few months? ;-) > > Although it’s probably an exceptional sequence, it underlines one > issue: > > Discussing the overall direction collides with discussing the > wording for a shared understanding of such direction. > > It’s two different phases, IMHO, with different level of > “debate”, but in the same time, a fruitful discussion needs a > concrete draft. > > Maybe something to think about.
We could keep numbers. If GCD 006 is refused or withdrawn, it remains GCD 006, and the next one doesn't share the same number. Or we could have something like numbers for non accepted GCD and numbers for the accepted ones. Like proposal 020, which became GCD 009 and we keep track of P020 <-> GCD 009. > 2. Discussing with Codeberg PR increases the “wall of text” effect. I propose to discuss proposal in stages. This means that after some discussions, the participant could collectively (through some process) try to summarize the arguments being made, similar to wikidebats. Example in French: https://fr.wikidebates.org/wiki/Faut-il_d%C3%A9battre_avec_l%27ennemi_%3F You have arguments for ("POUR") and against ("CONTRE") "arguing with your enemies" with each argument you can point to a bigger text that explains it in more details. This way people would not repeat themselves and we would have a quick summary. All the participant to the debates would also be able to discuss how to modify or improve the arguments including their wording to make sure that they are really taken into account. If the first stage finished we could then present the (now modified) GCD text along with the arguments for and against it. We would then write a mail to all voters that tell that the first stage is now ready (it could point to a commit to the GCD repository). Now the people that didn't participate could then look if something is missing and we'd do a second round of debates on what is missing. And when that is finished we'd vote. That would be even more asynchronous and the GCD could span in longer time frames, but the quality would be improved as well along the way, which could also make it possible to decide things that would be too heated to decide before. But the irony is also that we are already caught in this wall of text for discussing how to change the GCD as well. For instance I already expressed this idea before and it was probably lost in the noise in previous debates. Another possibility would be to try to split the debates in smaller teams that collectively work on specific arguments and/or on specific parts of the text which would then propose that as a modification when the work is done, and we'd need extra stages after that to make sure everybody can participate in all the GCD. Debian also has the ability to propose alternatives resolutions so here we could also enable to propose alternatives GCD, for instance if the wording really doesn't feel right but that we agree with the intent of the GCD. But we also need to give people time to actually be able to provide modified versions. Even just doing basic research requires time. Here I went to ask for clarifications on the non-copyrightability of 15 lines and I've been busy with that, and I still don't have an answer, and here I think this point is extremely important (the 15 lines) so messing up here would create way too much complexity to deal with afterward. Denis.
pgpRlydTLr_he.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
