>From GCD 001:
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.
GCD 008 did bring about broad community discussion. The only high cost
of reversion would have been the GCD itself. Perhaps the proposal
could have passed with a sunet, maybe the lone disapproval could have
found acceptance or support knowing that this would not have been a
permanent solution. I think that this is where we are. I've said
before, and I still believe, that the existence of the GCD process
never mandates a GCD. Our project can still apply the generally
approved commitments and policies without contravening Gabriel's
objections, which I read to be with the document and process itself
rather than this implementation.
This is not "pulling a gabber" to invalidate the disapproval and tweet
out an accepted GCD. Gabriel was correct in this assessment that the
GCD could be improved. Contributions and pull requests are
collaborative in ways that an authored GCD is not, and are updateable
and focused on the project and community. Politics makes everyone
unhappy, let's refocus on the use and disuse of LLMs regarding
communications and contribution copyright and licensing for code,
packaging, and translations. There is no need to discard the months of
work that went into GCD 008.
Greg
