On Tue, Jul 7, 2026 at 3:14 AM Jason Conroy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Greg Hogan <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 4:53 PM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I would prefer to incorporate the author's earlier clarification
> > from [0]:
> >
> > "We propose that contributions to Guix, including those made by
> > project members, be subject to the following policy:"
> >
> > [0]
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-06/msg00218.html
> >
> > Jason and Ludo', WDYT?
>
> I do see value in being very clear that different parts of the doc
> have different (if overlapping) audiences.
>
> However, my wording suggestion was based on the observation that
> only
> Items 3 and 4 of "Policy for Contributions" really apply to all
> contributors, while items 1 and 2 are rendered moot for project
> members
> due to Item 1 of "Project Commitments". Rather than expecting the
> reader
> to infer that they're moot, I wanted to be explicit. But I'm
> certainly
> open to other ways of expressing that.
Our project has never distinguished or placed one person above or
below another. There are additional hats ("responsibilities") which
may be worn as a committer, maintainer, team member but we all equally
participate in contributions, reviews, mailing list discussions, etc.
"Commit access should not be thought of as a “badge of honor” but
rather as a responsibility a contributor is willing to take to help
the project." [0]
Only commitments #2 and #3 follow as project commitments. Commitment
#1 is covered by the policy for contributions and could be removed.
Then there is no need to reword or clarify the policy for
contributions.
Jason, Ludo', WDYT?
[0] https://guix.gnu.org/manual/1.5.0/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html
