Hi,
On Sun, 13 Sep 2026 at 13:00, Nemin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> However, sadly it cannot be so simple. :-) The GCD deliberation isn’t
>> the expression of some mood or feelings at the deliberation time,
>> instead it’s the result of a deep thought about (1) “Can I live with my
>> concerns and the flaws I identify” and (2) “Aside my personal
>> preferences, is the outcome of the GCD at hand a good direction for the
>> project to move forward?”.
>
> As an outside observer, I find it really odd that the GCD process is set
> up in a way that allows a single person to completely torpedo a ~2 month
> process.
One strong assumption of GCD 001 is that team members are “wise“ enough
to refrain themselves on raising a last minute disagreement without
being beforehand active in the whole process.
Somehow, the outcome of the Deliberation Period should not be a
“surprise” because: Either the concerns had been actively discussed by
the ones who might disagree, and the situation is still locked in a
position where one or more still disagrees and cannot live with the
final proposal. Therefore, in this case we can expect some “disapprove”
when entering in the Deliberation Period; it’s a way to clearly
formalize that the situation is still locked.
Either the Discussion Period resolved various points and we reached a
final proposal that all the participants can live with.
About GCD 007, I think the “disapprove” was more or less expected; well
personally I anticipated it before entering in the Deliberation Period;
see [1].
About GCD 008, on my side, it had been hard to evaluate if the team
members who actively discussed their concerns in the Discussion Period
could live with the final proposal, but personally I did not anticipate
the kind of “not wise” deadlock.
Now, whatever what happened. Even it appears to me an opportunity. :-)
So yes GCD 001 is built with some strong assumptions that need to be
clarified and better guarded, thus yes GCD 001 needs to be updated.
Because yes team members who do not actively participate in the
Discussion Period should be not able to deadlock the final outcome.
> GCDs should have an additional role in the form of
> moderators.
Well, it’s the idea of Sponsor, quoting GCD 001:
A *sponsor* is […] by participating in discussions, providing
constructive comments to help the author(s), soliciting opinions,
and acting as timekeepers. As a sponsor, please make sure that all
participants have the time and space for expressing their comments.
Again, maybe the thing also needs to be clarified.
Thanks for you feedback.
Cheers,
simon
1: Re: GCD007: Next (last?) round of discussion.
Simon Tournier <[email protected]>
Wed, 22 Apr 2026 13:42:02 +0200
notmuch:id:[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-04
https://yhetil.org/guix/[email protected]
