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 2871D1DFFB for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 19:19:00 +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=1713813542; cv=none; b=FNNgf4WrF3Hk9m5qdcH1RKouKzXv6Z3YXYm4YZ69sTqpec4/XgHKiAwNcEr0ulDYouu6tucC61IVNVTBm6QaQVkhgv3VOXb2EHVDzLq9wEfLfmhJbJDHSotNHE5GZqNTcIMc7LmaomQOfu50nylrBUCBWRs41MbkjEMA0SOar4o= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713813542; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LUJeP70CwbsoJT1mwjUEP3kL5Frt0caraFx+CK1qW4o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=YMEA1X97vhu9KXfgekPIQ+VSS32I9vI8179n0Gb7OHH6wtW9TusnQtXLl3X1kDiJ4+qdRkWEkLmJjwic6g2O1ihnz7wZJkQa9TqqBncCfFPljIiT8vOh70s8aKU+PgS5oQbqzvXxjm/G3ydIU9AC4KjCkUEMloQhSesnmyPhnis= 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=NaxCz5N1; 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="NaxCz5N1" Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0253D1EB629; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:18:54 -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=LUJeP70CwbsoJT1mwjUEP3kL5Frt0caraFx+CK 1qW4o=; b=NaxCz5N1v17MnCf/GJyGBloDFXbna68hH32aTrfwRKUx/iiqfbePi/ 9Cl3hMmbVaAGdc24p+n+GPZPz95PomdFRLanIjo/BgnalfFYov8FpZB9b71AQQK7 OKMKoitdt7uSB0XUVz2wgt8KQDT7py0l0I750e8tLsPO+FZbINxrk= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDA8B1EB628; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:18:53 -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 28BA71EB627; Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:18:53 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: Josh Steadmon , git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, christian.couder@gmail.com, me@ttaylorr.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: describe the project's decision-making process In-Reply-To: (Emily Shaffer's message of "Mon, 22 Apr 2024 11:41:43 -0700") References: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:18:52 -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: 2812B366-00DD-11EF-B713-25B3960A682E-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Emily Shaffer writes: > Thanks for writing this. I, for one, would love to see the process > evolve a little to account for the scale of work coming through the > list on any given day. However, that's a discussion that will be > easier to have once we have the status quo written and checked in. > ... > So, if nobody disagrees with the content of this document, I think we > should absolutely merge it. It will be great for newbies to see what > they're getting into, and for me to send to my boss to explain why my > predictions for my team's patches landing are so broad. Isn't it a bit too late to say "if nobody disagrees with", after it was pointed out that the world around here does not work that way (yet) about a week ago? If we have an agreeable v2 already posted on the list that I missed, then sorry, please disregard the above comment. I still don't think it captures "the status quo", which is what you want this document to be, about "larger-scale decisions", as the Introduction of the document says. Can we have a set of pointers in the document, when it gets rerolled, to an actual example of how we made such a larger-scale decision? Without such illustration with a real world example, it looks to me that what it describes is what we wish the process to be (which is not necessarily I would object to), but labeling it as "describing the status quo" is very much objectionable. Thanks.