From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D73AE157E82 for ; Thu, 16 May 2024 22:01:24 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715896886; cv=none; b=PK6SAOc18MU1NPyMswQ9+qc45afn2Vl+IViQQci3zGfI82n+34ZPy5+7Frx29QgTtT4OR3VqrZfjQmtfauXAgNeCOrQpCpCuMTYue+Jh6g6eyjFHjYHnpATgDl+RzVBSTf50p3zPVwtvKIItd1+9m0j7pPz6DBwKOgUgtz01ngM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1715896886; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QUCR5qynOdQ8YmORAcUF8F2wne1HSzSYg/tWYxUFvRc=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=a4JErAqpnAIYjtMKr/z/e5G5n2v2dTrx2aGG6hs/mi7UgndxhkbnvmcvhG09o+qk6i934whN+osXDBqryfhpJopeW/DtKT7JWN0vT89+nlfC0jWK5BkA4AhyL7tjFCYKatRM8lX8UBYcKcb7ArdElWn7LgHBfKPu1BJpYy05Pn8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=B5107u15; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="B5107u15" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347E329018; Thu, 16 May 2024 18:01:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=QUCR5qynOdQ8YmORAcUF8F2wne1HSzSYg/tWYx UFvRc=; b=B5107u15fbGiG05NG2O3uJFhpXi1wL32E9LoNBs9N+S1+/XITrfe8+ 0OB4DWBiD3xVJuRdvr5LxCvRDf+tvJ1GtuvWM116yBOmaKW+Xud33QVdFWC9bTZw 2fhmmjL7GmSoqbaVNuCtKaDp6omW2ArOeIKi37BFpnfsFfCr9RYTQ= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C3E329017; Thu, 16 May 2024 18:01:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.153.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B3D4F29016; Thu, 16 May 2024 18:01:14 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Josh Steadmon Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, karthik.188@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com, ps@pks.im, emrass@google.com, nasamuffin@google.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process In-Reply-To: <5446ca49e042b104923ac2004d845a5f9018c9d9.1715894135.git.steadmon@google.com> (Josh Steadmon's message of "Thu, 16 May 2024 14:20:53 -0700") References: <5446ca49e042b104923ac2004d845a5f9018c9d9.1715894135.git.steadmon@google.com> Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 15:01:13 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: D06A1B80-13CF-11EF-8FBB-A19503B9AAD1-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Josh Steadmon writes: > Changes in V3: > * Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale > patch series. I do not think I deserve Co-authorship for the small changes in the remaining document, as my contributions going from v2 to v3 were mostly line removal ;-). > +Larger Discussions (with patches) > +--------------------------------- Reads well and looks sensible. > +Larger Discussions (without patches) > +------------------------------------ > +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series. > +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of > +... I do not know how strongly assertive you wanted to be, but I suspect that it will read better with "might" -> "may". > ... > +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation, > +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any > +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to > +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation > +that can be more easily debated. It is a bit fuzzy what "other specific implementation" wants to convey. A mere "RFC" is often an unfinished work-in-progress, and if the "other specific implementation" is different from it, then what it would be? A minimum viable product? A proof-of-concept? All other parts did read very well. Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at around "other specific implementation". Thanks.