From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (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 0C1724C6D for ; Fri, 3 May 2024 14:45:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714747535; cv=none; b=s5ihitjgdJjm7MYR+5CNON7dkEr3vsPjckmBjfMAyvdgvm1lBXWnRGp4jc9vDXEX8QOyd7eu2NppduJBLnYzZazi23hp89clxFnfte2DZTgAL7fQgTMbz4BFGqKrQLIWeDN5XcydBXeeg9eaemwgEgI6vauOtH0HLLUDWcpejuk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714747535; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KkI/cMCm1iZ+Bq30XZHZf/TZa++Y06qL6vpmVTQbyTE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ZKDRg4Jrg+Yw2rjzLVMHL3S4+0FBQoo9yRykUGMYQ3clHikpgkT7PXYPNigHTf1S/wDB2S7KAOkYONhpm8BQ/7j8pXsVIPQgae4iFPIum8zysMdbLG3p7teYR3WpQnhWgOmALejF2TZjfRPvmZ5x7gGcy0a8QrR/h9kjYDhje+s= 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=Fahn8iTC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.108.71 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="Fahn8iTC" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2664A257E5; Fri, 3 May 2024 10:45:27 -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=KkI/cMCm1iZ+Bq30XZHZf/TZa++Y06qL6vpmVT QbyTE=; b=Fahn8iTCdHC1sbRIaDyDIm2JE4q0GW89emNvljlC960aWncC3FnNRf Vmssn763NGyIwZdvDu2HS9Enma8nzSML3AahlMWa+zx31RtKH7hTifoh2mAA4hkq 0XExLSAcLkbqphqElvvDNnanQ9H9V1hUK+Tx2u4P2YKNea3VMmA1g= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD32257E4; Fri, 3 May 2024 10:45:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.120.109]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D033257E3; Fri, 3 May 2024 10:45:26 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: git@vger.kernel.org Cc: steadmon@google.com, avarab@gmail.com, christian.couder@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com, Enrico Mrass , Emily Shaffer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:58:26 -0700") References: <20240417163244.651791-1-emrass@google.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 07:45:25 -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: C77D77D4-095B-11EF-91B2-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Junio C Hamano writes: > Enrico Mrass writes: > >> I'd be curious to learn about norms or practices applied when no consensus >> could be reached. It seems worth elaborating on that as part of documenting the >> decision-making process. > > I may be forgetting things, but I do not know if there is a concrete > "here is a norm that we have been using to reach a consensus, not > just written down but it has been there" in the first place, let > alone "here is what we do to resolve an irreconcilable differences". > > "We discuss and try to reach a consensus in an amicable way, > sticking to CoC, etc." has mostly been good enough for our happy > family, perhaps? > >> ... However, nothing >> in the current description strikes me as specific to these larger-scale >> decisions. > > I agree with that. We didn't hear any more comments on this topic, but writing down how the world works around here, with the goal to eventually have a set of project governance rules, is valuable. Otherwise loud people may act according to their own (unwritten) rules that annoy others and harm the community. Thanks.