From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Wed Jun 14 06:54:00 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85744D87724 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:54:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from core-secretary@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DBD7CAFA for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:54:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from core-secretary@FreeBSD.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 63F92D87723; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:54:00 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63723D87722 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:54:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from core-secretary@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk [81.2.117.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk", Issuer "infracaninophile.co.uk" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 052A57CAF9; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:53:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from core-secretary@FreeBSD.org) Received: from liminal.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:8b0:151:1:1c1d:86a1:a200:b700]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk) by smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C89DF9926; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:53:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk; dmarc=none header.from=FreeBSD.org Authentication-Results: smtp.infracaninophile.co.uk/C89DF9926; dkim=none; dkim-atps=neutral From: FreeBSD Core Secretary Subject: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' Cc: 'FreeBSD Core Team' References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> To: FreeBSD Developers , fcp@freebsd.org Reply-To: fcp@freebsd.org Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:53:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vfIaaQ6mRtnGX5Uq0PGWratHx96ddEPoD" X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:54:00 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --vfIaaQ6mRtnGX5Uq0PGWratHx96ddEPoD Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Q8lacustAKqf1NkCm0PSeKU744hMjC2WK"; protected-headers="v1" From: FreeBSD Core Secretary Reply-To: fcp@freebsd.org To: FreeBSD Developers , fcp@freebsd.org Cc: 'FreeBSD Core Team' Message-ID: Subject: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> --Q8lacustAKqf1NkCm0PSeKU744hMjC2WK Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, Core has just presented their ideas for a new 'FreeBSD Community Process' at BSDCan. This will provide a more formalized mechanism for proposing and deciding on important or contentious changes within the Project. The idea is to avoid discussions degenerating into an interminable argument on the mailing lists with ultimately no action being taken. The FCP process is modelled on similar ideas in other projects, particularly the Python Enhancement Process (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/), the Joyent RFD Process (https://github.com/joyent/rfd/blob/master/README.md), and even the venerable IETF RFC Process (https://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html) In summary, anyone wanting to make a change that will result in a non-trivial effect on the FreeBSD User Base, (or retrospectively anyone having backed out a change after running into contention over something that turned out less trivial than they anticipated), should write down what they propose to change, describing what problem they are trying to solve, how they propose to solve it and what consequential impact this will have. Contact the fcp-editors@ mailing list for assistance in getting your proposal into releasable state. The document is then added to the FCP index, committed into the FCP repository and published for discussion. Each FCP proposal is a living document and will be updated to reflect any conclusions resulting during the discussion. Once consensus has been achieved, or the discussion has gone on for enough time, Core will vote on accepting the FCP. Core will be voting according to the mood of the discussion around the proposal. The current state of fcp-0000.md -- the document that defines the FCP process -- can be viewed at https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0000.md This is a working document and subject to change. We will be applying the FCP process as far as possible to fcp-0000 itself: this message counts as the formal announcement on the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list placing fcp-0000 into 'feedback' status. Your contributions are welcome, by email to the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list, or by submitting issues or pull requests, or by annotating the fcp-0000.md document text through GitHub. For help with generating a new FCP document and discussion around the FCP process please join the fcp-editors@FreeBSD.org mailing list. Cheers, Matthew --Q8lacustAKqf1NkCm0PSeKU744hMjC2WK-- --vfIaaQ6mRtnGX5Uq0PGWratHx96ddEPoD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJZQN2EXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRDMDdCRjVFMzEwQUU2NEJGNjEyMEIwRjYz NkE3QzA1RkUxRUNGOUJCAAoJEDanwF/h7Pm7VxcP/0CXMWdwo8FBax8Ss2OW1x9g rkKfkJJXyGEPHinO0npIHB6avhyduD97H/651EVLLKCSI61PzsYOiW5iYUANuYG9 JOOYGIw33/tAqgMM6NtD1XKmGowvONETDGOhWv33wSy/EQrhjLdCr/bGnDiOKk1k t0tMI9lPzqispkLxVdl87zS/8gYtIJmbBqXW0cIHfjbVd2QPKPixsT2qps5ShK1z sgutVSDiY1H2sNGfSbzeXz7VghR++biDSek8nQAUKFD54HYLK9JykugBXR0e4GyB q58GNwSDAdHy53zv4HQr3pmhli6cLHRxsidd+TFXl3cQNJCS/eORK1cAToLNbp2A bryCd+Ez6goZORH8R/gdmS8VFe7yyTYESGam9/gkF5fna8L+bZG6L3iYlJuLAnEz r8D8haHVHnQFf8Ugdz6TqBzvKz+jtXrUR3mTeZe+ILtL0ZhehP2ZPjMYYRoSQ8Zd LHJgp0eBltPbu+AJQNkrO+HjCTlhN9tgXmcQhJFpeoC2hexAL/V8Z79Pc9fPGtse YZYPlRZ29KPRgLwufoMW3r/bQlor4kwdsYI7O8xh8/Q3OJXHfqJ35mbIJhs9xgrJ Rg2E8s4oPp3agmGauXz7oNgScAoKtEBSvo6Ozsi/+IXSjzVcAnWXxhDRBtplzvDJ WLu+i5+OZVZb+aUaj1he =kmYC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vfIaaQ6mRtnGX5Uq0PGWratHx96ddEPoD-- From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Wed Jun 14 20:38:17 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6096BBF380F for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:38:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4190377EB1 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:38:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3E238BF380E; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB63BF380D for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:38:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: from st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com (st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com [17.41.193.160]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 157B677EB0; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:38:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: from process-dkim-sign-daemon.st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com by st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.38.0 64bit (built Feb 26 2016)) id <0ORJ00K00YIOBE00@st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:38:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=04042017; t=1497469090; bh=YTWSYN6T0ee7A+0A61y7HAXx/aXMjTufdZk+YmntKZM=; h=Content-type:MIME-version:Subject:From:Date:Message-id:To; b=Zh5wmD7ij9GVyUG0AIqb+AdCvB3G4eAwQ9Fzg32WPe9pjglsc4zn4EOisynx1zSOn vXXJVDnaELfq3t2SY8R1Iwu/SEnRWRuKhp3TRXnGbiU3XOdh0VkBDDHV1UaXE91tz0 ruyvwKLwFHa2RT3tavzSmfr1nDhmyvjOnLFTThj2TH4ABPeOjltrTv6/nqOFUA6cSB Fep0GmXSX/CwkdBpHFkDuTUMTSNTG2eadEC7USHwvNK6XszGOsXflrE01iMF+HeRt+ nPbM0z11btbvr6NdRuXmS0ZFeclLJTWDFipLrNjjgEuxKE4ILS8Fq9mFUPYjCEG92D q1fq3J8/RRtGw== Received: from icloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.38.0 64bit (built Feb 26 2016)) with ESMTPSA id <0ORJ00GBJYJK4V30@st13p97im-ztdg18301101.me.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:38:10 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-06-14_05:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1034 suspectscore=1 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1701120000 definitions=main-1706140328 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3436\)) Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' From: Rui Paulo In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:38:07 -0700 Cc: FreeBSD Developers Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> To: fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3436) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:38:17 -0000 On Jun 13, 2017, at 23:53, FreeBSD Core Secretary = wrote: >=20 >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > Core has just presented their ideas for a new 'FreeBSD Community > Process' at BSDCan. This will provide a more formalized mechanism for > proposing and deciding on important or contentious changes within the > Project. The idea is to avoid discussions degenerating into an > interminable argument on the mailing lists with ultimately no action > being taken. >=20 > The FCP process is modelled on similar ideas in other projects, > particularly the Python Enhancement Process > (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/), the Joyent RFD Process > (https://github.com/joyent/rfd/blob/master/README.md), and even the > venerable IETF RFC Process > (https://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html) >=20 > In summary, anyone wanting to make a change that will result in a > non-trivial effect on the FreeBSD User Base, (or retrospectively = anyone > having backed out a change after running into contention over = something > that turned out less trivial than they anticipated), should write down > what they propose to change, describing what problem they are trying = to > solve, how they propose to solve it and what consequential impact this > will have. Contact the fcp-editors@ mailing list for assistance in > getting your proposal into releasable state. The document is then = added > to the FCP index, committed into the FCP repository and published for > discussion. Each FCP proposal is a living document and will be = updated > to reflect any conclusions resulting during the discussion. >=20 > Once consensus has been achieved, or the discussion has gone on for > enough time, Core will vote on accepting the FCP. Core will be voting > according to the mood of the discussion around the proposal. >=20 > The current state of fcp-0000.md -- the document that defines the FCP > process -- can be viewed at >=20 > https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0000.md >=20 > This is a working document and subject to change. We will be applying > the FCP process as far as possible to fcp-0000 itself: this message > counts as the formal announcement on the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list > placing fcp-0000 into 'feedback' status. Your contributions are > welcome, by email to the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list, or by = submitting > issues or pull requests, or by annotating the fcp-0000.md document = text > through GitHub. >=20 > For help with generating a new FCP document and discussion around the > FCP process please join the fcp-editors@FreeBSD.org mailing list. I think the FCP idea is good, but I don=E2=80=99t like the fact that = only core@ can vote. Core has been an entity that doesn=E2=80=99t get = to decide much on the direction of the project and I was under the = impression that most people were okay with this because the developers = were the ones deciding the direction of the project. Why can=E2=80=99t = committers vote? =E2=80=94 Rui Paulo From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Wed Jun 14 21:20:17 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBE4BF4097 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C839678FAB for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C4665BF4096; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40F9BF4095 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-io0-x234.google.com (mail-io0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8857078FAA for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-io0-x234.google.com with SMTP id t87so314293ioe.0 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:20:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=A6vtTQSCc+/oiwDaIamTIDgbwclN4dQLf/uGNW2rRlQ=; b=nIWCHpsFUb0QBmVp9IivWUnv96l5kuC+O7I+jyBmZF3+VrkkVdfbTW3mwHJfnflzd1 OC3VO4WPVJe5rhtGHmVkBkbVWNfejxisIMU26lqXRSfm+6It0v+z7lDTtHnw7MtfG3Ob HMbR/QwBuu5mpWA4FwAH6dDGEFn0arOw12forF+vHXeBZmNOJpy20onfMrWrW1WNX5TC fEiC7JwVwHeeTkFYA48XOiPdVG7zV42IqTAtlSbqQpqdm7EyT8yRwqCFae7HMK94QJo9 ChVQ61bls0zDPsUS8a8OSFB0AdicG4SqB3D+w8jvf7zRJzNYcDYMehXoFfRvBb7BcG5W eh+A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=A6vtTQSCc+/oiwDaIamTIDgbwclN4dQLf/uGNW2rRlQ=; b=ND9Iwf9F6XZlGOJmOKtUR1B0Pybs/XdtdsT2wBPu4aLLHxC7/wJHO4E65fnjK9V73J rS9SUO68Rk1g1oCvZFcm/1DDlbfLLYkFO9tQ1cnJTtrQwt4xDsELC6aB2D566sr/9Z19 rxw78jpRY4sF4bjlpgNtvRlHLxIe9BCiJI36Ep+uM1cfqZMRMKE/k3sWAEoJ/Msuf1HU YB3fgcnpIuW/lvyz3XJEhlOMVtwgX9nf4e3ef8d6ZjsPVH8IJqKf7Pmte5ur7VExCF4n ANZD+/6DH/U5snw1rb00Hl+W22/0w8lJHMC2BuGL6ZBKgA7/RXhWhLWnKT9TJqvgNRiq Ivfw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOxWy048KzxkLt+rMlGibBwufPdpYXTAG/8UxJMGQ71ZhQTdkwpX 02KywexAPJEoJplgwMAU08D5og+zDJ77 X-Received: by 10.107.16.217 with SMTP id 86mr2468484ioq.134.1497475216470; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:20:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.192.69 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:20:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2607:fb90:6c25:94ee:0:49:dc9b:8801] Received: by 10.79.192.69 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:20:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:20:15 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qQUSdPuUJPPfCZZbEL-kB9SDAeU Message-ID: Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' To: Rui Paulo Cc: fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Developers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:18 -0000 On Jun 14, 2017 2:38 PM, "Rui Paulo" wrote: On Jun 13, 2017, at 23:53, FreeBSD Core Secretary wrote: > > > Dear all, > > Core has just presented their ideas for a new 'FreeBSD Community > Process' at BSDCan. This will provide a more formalized mechanism for > proposing and deciding on important or contentious changes within the > Project. The idea is to avoid discussions degenerating into an > interminable argument on the mailing lists with ultimately no action > being taken. > > The FCP process is modelled on similar ideas in other projects, > particularly the Python Enhancement Process > (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/), the Joyent RFD Process > (https://github.com/joyent/rfd/blob/master/README.md), and even the > venerable IETF RFC Process > (https://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html) > > In summary, anyone wanting to make a change that will result in a > non-trivial effect on the FreeBSD User Base, (or retrospectively anyone > having backed out a change after running into contention over something > that turned out less trivial than they anticipated), should write down > what they propose to change, describing what problem they are trying to > solve, how they propose to solve it and what consequential impact this > will have. Contact the fcp-editors@ mailing list for assistance in > getting your proposal into releasable state. The document is then added > to the FCP index, committed into the FCP repository and published for > discussion. Each FCP proposal is a living document and will be updated > to reflect any conclusions resulting during the discussion. > > Once consensus has been achieved, or the discussion has gone on for > enough time, Core will vote on accepting the FCP. Core will be voting > according to the mood of the discussion around the proposal. > > The current state of fcp-0000.md -- the document that defines the FCP > process -- can be viewed at > > https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0000.md > > This is a working document and subject to change. We will be applying > the FCP process as far as possible to fcp-0000 itself: this message > counts as the formal announcement on the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list > placing fcp-0000 into 'feedback' status. Your contributions are > welcome, by email to the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list, or by submitting > issues or pull requests, or by annotating the fcp-0000.md document text > through GitHub. > > For help with generating a new FCP document and discussion around the > FCP process please join the fcp-editors@FreeBSD.org mailing list. I think the FCP idea is good, but I don=E2=80=99t like the fact that only c= ore@ can vote. Core has been an entity that doesn=E2=80=99t get to decide much on t= he direction of the project and I was under the impression that most people were okay with this because the developers were the ones deciding the direction of the project. Why can=E2=80=99t committers vote? It was explained at bsdcan the the vote is primarily for "this repents the general consensus" rather than, this is the direction we should go. If the fcp doesn't match consensus then it will be voted no. If there is some extraordinary issue that didn't come up during the discussion, I can see cores role as oversight for the project taking over (eg nobody realized what they were proposing was illegal or had an unknown liabilty). That needs to be more clearly articulated in the fcp. Warner =E2=80=94 Rui Paulo _______________________________________________ freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fcp To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fcp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Wed Jun 14 23:45:25 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7CA7BF6241 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76297CFA0 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id A3574BF6240; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1004BF623F for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: from st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com (st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com [17.41.193.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CBE37CF9F; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:45:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rpaulo@me.com) Received: from process-dkim-sign-daemon.st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com by st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.38.0 64bit (built Feb 26 2016)) id <0ORK005006KO1900@st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:45:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=me.com; s=04042017; t=1497480318; bh=H1MwqaCaWHT+mX9lCgOZ1Jcf0XEgG+7DOTkgzZBrTsk=; h=Content-type:MIME-version:Subject:From:Date:Message-id:To; b=tYyQ/1eR3Nrb/7gOdog1WqxzVT42dLtWVZOl2DR2Rnqhh/zBQGZwq8OA8NvtRYExc WKh99na4m1Js4QkT5GUKTLgi2w/a9+YNHfOiAhfhe3fC4sZ5hhpYDEYz5vOcy8HOuH RKXlOgytbmhw/RET0ad2WwMs+YfBXMTDbAI4BJGKOnYyfusLtgPVi5hP5X15zzeTWA zrPVZ3CQmhvvPoYF5DFVp5PoEc2NW0UdgPBLE8xIFMbmdwAdTzYyLQCIYRXisvIbo6 X1w/jR5kETA0Y1KSfWjLlrbNEaiL8WikpkX5GeqL9VDDT6k+dSz8HHezOkCWzpSrl5 TT2/84F1h2jug== Received: from icloud.com ([127.0.0.1]) by st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.38.0 64bit (built Feb 26 2016)) with ESMTPSA id <0ORK00DFF77GUY10@st13p97im-ztdg18291001.me.com>; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:45:17 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-06-14_06:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1034 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1701120000 definitions=main-1706140377 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.0 \(3436\)) Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' From: Rui Paulo In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 15:45:15 -0700 Cc: fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Developers Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Message-id: <536D30FA-42CF-4F7F-9AE3-70B0822977C3@me.com> References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3436) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:45:25 -0000 On Jun 14, 2017, at 14:20, Warner Losh wrote: >=20 > It was explained at bsdcan the the vote is primarily for "this repents = the general consensus" rather than, this is the direction we should go. = If the fcp doesn't match consensus then it will be voted no. That=E2=80=99s what you think will happen, but the FCP doesn=E2=80=99t = say anything about that and the interpretations of the community and = core might be different. It just seems like a bad model for core to try to interpret everyone=E2=80= =99s feedback and then vote on it. If people provide feedback and say = something like =E2=80=9CAPPROVE=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNEEDS = DISCUSSION=E2=80=9D, it will make the process much more transparent. The vote should come from the people providing feedback. I see no = reason why core needs to vote on other people=E2=80=99s feedback. =E2=80=94 Rui Paulo From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Thu Jun 15 00:23:59 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C60BF7125 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F8B7E2D9 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 81045BF7124; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809D8BF7123 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F1947E2D8; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from benno@jeamland.net) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6005820AB3; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:23:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:23:57 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=jeamland.net; h= cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=KyT93JaXT7CBSz2gRP mJ0oMOQcvwi+UqFome7zKWkts=; b=Yoe/lwT7kfkLHJWuFhoOT4xi4biSs22xE1 nKi7g80a4ciAkw8+dDkjnPY0R5G3fpDk/tOkBxOjTDnSw+IwCHT72eVbVGgHLCoE VJDEA/vvp1rdmfl+UGuxpxpsc7UQee6qg0MFnnqLG7/vyfYvUWTLxB+Pk2EKDINa xjIDwxALjAguWD5UTGJCt6dXQk7r5e9UiJ+5yAcmBH4+MtPtPisGK/JlWaSLvTwV 8o0VibODHUvUbG94ox9tdlgbqIqJr9liL2mqFIGI47UVDryV1nfyAnKmB9idEJbS Hb7/Vdt2rgatduUNAbxCQHzvhgYBrIYeNGfkTxdHgC8c3RQrMctg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; bh=KyT93JaXT7CBSz2gRPmJ0oMOQcvwi+UqFome7zKWkts=; b=c25TcO06 Y+qq4JNyKppQDxiyGuMFNdiWaqML/mEaReCTJCVyZbAptJKS+7ijJhbMa/KAe6W/ 1vbdO5t8OC4miHMRxnhYWeBxyFQ8TLAC/oKW5oeAuioe4FJletXQGXPcFqqZ9J5v hy1qi+aIo15f1x/4ck7fa9tV/v9OIvivjY/4uh4Dyu3Q4SpLURH4yrgG631hlXkf PUcnAul8JxW+t/+cUIw6nyELYwpuBrZUF3zHccrF1fH2+8KuuwXh8s7tCdZTLFvl mHUmtc5s5i0PnjCVZkmQDpU0D4u9gbKp7COE6KRsj1mYEKo/HLsxp8nUQLgK+cAA ho9d8cLnODoCMg== X-ME-Sender: X-Sasl-enc: edAPBFYAoWrVGPdXmCFlnqAYa8M3M0R0wdHHh1mrJIJ6 1497486237 Received: from mittlerweile.west.isilon.com (c-76-104-201-218.hsd1.wa.comcast.net [76.104.201.218]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A70AE24772; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' From: Benno Rice In-Reply-To: <536D30FA-42CF-4F7F-9AE3-70B0822977C3@me.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:23:54 -0700 Cc: Warner Losh , fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Developers Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E8C8EF6-D73E-4FD3-817F-BADC0527D4B3@jeamland.net> References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> <536D30FA-42CF-4F7F-9AE3-70B0822977C3@me.com> To: Rui Paulo X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:23:59 -0000 > On Jun 14, 2017, at 15:45, Rui Paulo wrote: >=20 > On Jun 14, 2017, at 14:20, Warner Losh wrote: >>=20 >> It was explained at bsdcan the the vote is primarily for "this = repents the general consensus" rather than, this is the direction we = should go. If the fcp doesn't match consensus then it will be voted no. >=20 > That=E2=80=99s what you think will happen, but the FCP doesn=E2=80=99t = say anything about that and the interpretations of the community and = core might be different. > It just seems like a bad model for core to try to interpret = everyone=E2=80=99s feedback and then vote on it. If people provide = feedback and say something like =E2=80=9CAPPROVE=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNEED= S DISCUSSION=E2=80=9D, it will make the process much more transparent. >=20 > The vote should come from the people providing feedback. I see no = reason why core needs to vote on other people=E2=80=99s feedback. I put some thought in to this. I don=E2=80=99t think an ad hoc group comprising just the people = providing feedback works, mainly due to a lack of consistency in the = make-up of the group approving or disapproving. You could have a group = appointed by core (or elected by developers) but then that doesn=E2=80=99t= seem to be too different to just using core itself. Core has = _historically_ not involved itself in technical decisions but there=E2=80=99= s nothing that says they can=E2=80=99t and this model is not the same as = core just making technical decisions without input. I=E2=80=99d be more than happy if you wanted to propose a wording change = that said that core MUST base its decision on the feedback the proposal = has received. In general I=E2=80=99d make the point that core is elected by the = developers. This indicates that the developers have some trust in core = to do the right thing. FCP is designed to help provide structure to = debates over change and help drive them to a resolution. For that to = work there needs to be a consistent group that is distilling the = discussion around the change into a resolution. Even if I weren=E2=80=99t = on core I=E2=80=99d be happy with the concept that core is the right = body for that. The final point I=E2=80=99d make is that the FCP process itself is = designed to malleable. If you feel that core isn=E2=80=99t making the = right decisions, write an FCP that changes the process. If core = doesn=E2=80=99t accept it, vote for a different core and try again. The = process is designed to handle that situation. If you feel there are improvements you can make on FCP 0 now it=E2=80=99s = currently in the feedback state, not the accepted state, for a good = reason. Thanks, Benno.= From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Thu Jun 15 01:37:42 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07511BF9ED4 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:37:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D312D81085 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id D2745BF9ECA; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1F95BF9EC9 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-it0-x229.google.com (mail-it0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9710781083 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:37:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-it0-x229.google.com with SMTP id m47so10009943iti.1 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:37:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=zMgkRAq9bX0SmYxE2qv0TfsRW/P/4CdOshXLdEQS7D8=; b=kmMdRXxVPBKlZ9m2+yiIa/WuEWGr35xBKTo+jzJkQGBxlj1Jkrk3xSB35ubF+yXAdM KLZ6GOKe3W0qFVIna9y5sJRP0ZmFetY8/scD0NtS5agYBoOvo1i0q6JJaroDqvIcslxY mMArjCSGvFRyp0aE7Da+4Qw4sPmkpHnNsZFn8PGF+zp4x6ST2RtJ5vdroZ73rLteAuPP 2I5vXtjRqjVs5IwpNIa0BR3AN6uFXnS+asApSGFPj80MirW1u4N2t0momTRYdW5VVCTv zOXZFLGbqPdf37wZ5IMfUZBfmzmLVlEf2J36iLI8OC2oR6D+Y7MRQwi4sVE98cAoGU4X 1kIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zMgkRAq9bX0SmYxE2qv0TfsRW/P/4CdOshXLdEQS7D8=; b=QRQa2ntPMuGwnnsHIxVWupTo8SzsIqg69o54kb1ph3LeD20LRBGvN+TYui2R17gibk msQ5aCE5ND4LcTOMvskRXyKfbwegG5o+j+FO6UQFfMZLqAZji+A1OE4OnBGk3d//5MNm t0PqLUfcUUVObNJxnEtInMPGK+l/pyyMepPjpAWmfhH4vU6gDHnjdAns0ZVK6DdjVQdX 6p3+HaI26jOBm1BCLvxZyEIsg/WHnq6Fh24NioPskbN7E4I0yo1u1kkL9eXzK8i0gh/M 8/KdymmeIQbGLk4kGMDlHPF8tToqOfgYPILUGMXqWxG9j5K+2W4rAMY19vf0/nNGEmco 4l2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOyOiCXGyrMI8/7Uh5I2+j6DPh3Ox5u35d3klcBZKkeK/HDnFQzo 4Yu63JdHRvy38/kp9ZNLQ8xIisTbfaXO X-Received: by 10.36.105.13 with SMTP id e13mr2989113itc.64.1497490660936; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:37:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: wlosh@bsdimp.com Received: by 10.79.192.69 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 18:37:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [2603:300b:6:5100:d87b:e14c:f481:32ef] In-Reply-To: <7E8C8EF6-D73E-4FD3-817F-BADC0527D4B3@jeamland.net> References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> <536D30FA-42CF-4F7F-9AE3-70B0822977C3@me.com> <7E8C8EF6-D73E-4FD3-817F-BADC0527D4B3@jeamland.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:37:40 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bmkEnP3AO5iaA2D1yP-nuCAFJwk Message-ID: Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' To: Benno Rice Cc: Rui Paulo , fcp@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Developers Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 01:37:42 -0000 On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:23 PM, Benno Rice wrote: > > > On Jun 14, 2017, at 15:45, Rui Paulo wrote: > > > > On Jun 14, 2017, at 14:20, Warner Losh wrote: > >> > >> It was explained at bsdcan the the vote is primarily for "this repents > the general consensus" rather than, this is the direction we should go. I= f > the fcp doesn't match consensus then it will be voted no. > > > > That=E2=80=99s what you think will happen, but the FCP doesn=E2=80=99t = say anything > about that and the interpretations of the community and core might be > different. > > It just seems like a bad model for core to try to interpret everyone=E2= =80=99s > feedback and then vote on it. If people provide feedback and say somethi= ng > like =E2=80=9CAPPROVE=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CNEEDS DISCUSSION=E2=80=9D, it = will make the process much more > transparent. > > > > The vote should come from the people providing feedback. I see no > reason why core needs to vote on other people=E2=80=99s feedback. > > I put some thought in to this. > > I don=E2=80=99t think an ad hoc group comprising just the people providin= g > feedback works, mainly due to a lack of consistency in the make-up of the > group approving or disapproving. You could have a group appointed by core > (or elected by developers) but then that doesn=E2=80=99t seem to be too d= ifferent > to just using core itself. Core has _historically_ not involved itself in > technical decisions but there=E2=80=99s nothing that says they can=E2=80= =99t and this model > is not the same as core just making technical decisions without input. > Core actually *HAS* involved itself in technical decisions. Quite frequently when I was on core. However, it was rarely in the form of "vote on it" (though it did happen), but more often members of core worked to drive discussions and consensus so that core didn't have to vote on things. I have seen it since I was in core too, since the finger prints of it are quire unique if you know what to look for. Many times there were technical disputes that needed mediation to resolve.... I find this as nothing more than writing down what's decided, and core making a note of it. It's got to be better than re-inventing the discussion in a way that polarizes people, pours concrete over the extreme positions and ensures no progress can be made on contentious issues. > I=E2=80=99d be more than happy if you wanted to propose a wording change = that said > that core MUST base its decision on the feedback the proposal has receive= d. > I think that's silly, but then again I trust core. If you don't trust core, then you lose no matter what words are here because although MUST is in big shiny caps, "base" is a weasel word that sucks all the meaning out of it since it provides ample wiggle room for mischief. Try to eliminate all weasel words, and you wind up with a policy that's perfectly unambiguous and totally useless. > In general I=E2=80=99d make the point that core is elected by the develop= ers. This > indicates that the developers have some trust in core to do the right > thing. FCP is designed to help provide structure to debates over change a= nd > help drive them to a resolution. For that to work there needs to be a > consistent group that is distilling the discussion around the change into= a > resolution. Even if I weren=E2=80=99t on core I=E2=80=99d be happy with t= he concept that > core is the right body for that. > I'm not on core, and I agree with that. One thing that I help institute, and regret doing so, is the intense secrecy of core. Changing that would help with the trust issue, if members of core were looking for ways to help fix that. Going to a 'default open, but closed where appropriate' model would go a long way towards that, even if that released a lot of super boring stuff that we thankfully have summarized for us. But that's just me.... > The final point I=E2=80=99d make is that the FCP process itself is design= ed to > malleable. If you feel that core isn=E2=80=99t making the right decisions= , write an > FCP that changes the process. If core doesn=E2=80=99t accept it, vote for= a > different core and try again. The process is designed to handle that > situation. > > If you feel there are improvements you can make on FCP 0 now it=E2=80=99s > currently in the feedback state, not the accepted state, for a good reaso= n. > I've read through it, and am confused what the proper place to provide that feedback is, or comment on other feedback... Do you have a good suggestion for where that might be? Warner > Thanks, > Benno. From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Thu Jun 15 02:55:24 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CD85BFD455 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:55:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pkelsey@gmail.com) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC89B83F57 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:55:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pkelsey@gmail.com) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id EB930BFD454; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:55:23 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFDEBFD453 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:55:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pkelsey@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pg0-x229.google.com (mail-pg0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6979D83F56 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:55:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pkelsey@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pg0-x229.google.com with SMTP id k71so1146752pgd.2 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:55:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=ixEVIioRdutS6xuzfVeVd3GKYkbGqexobwxviwp/YBA=; b=p/Qsn/1/mWcHbu6uPGdV1gAVZxCwf7vbs+mz5aETuqCcRRwIQGqgL7n7vKc7U8nUGE 0hsq00YbskBzcSHZxzsFXMfR1YAswXZEjCn98NZVajwFNKq89njG++ajISVG8H/t5x8T sy3vktdbdBPjsHPyxK1AdWMsDhb5C6sgvRgthc0/mIaX5A7RRoG93UpGpyMTjAf+Hm5x 5mulaZWkuic4zNteijyWqnA4ZwxUgq4KEduS3Qq3RL0K3qDLmcQhxsf2w5L4xXotz2lq e5bN1RvakXn9zYxG3QL/kgDpFPc6yMTKRECzpPPzXGg1uZrYlJ5r7QaxszSx+CX1ll0I UHNg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to; bh=ixEVIioRdutS6xuzfVeVd3GKYkbGqexobwxviwp/YBA=; b=HzpDyhSAiDuL/9vX4sUDWDG2oC0VtAUKltv7XK+wXANcUYtze1T/y8YU9BboXwreXl IyoBf2a2B8AXfconqTJsPBSiT6n0OqfAXqaTRQw1azkjrfWI4w4Vki6TBGVbZTk/sK3W hvKfet5KiKLVgaZTEkPwVCVTft+mAZfWv66K5MMe8l9+Q9/WPts8EBA7yYxvDW9zmFIz Veb5mC0j/lNGNutY3sKpgdMc0Kehmo7qZHZHoW5wZYtCZARfKKUzWe16spSLVP44g8YH f4R8axkblksJuC456NCa0wVjJJrXoqcnxT60KobgYqTOYtz3hUrJC/ICTPdq2zA192I2 wsnA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOync3Rt9zUsCAudVqoHv3XD30NjN4JlVM4v0AcqEmD+Xhqj5Eur RtnbhsyZnAqrkigxl37T5jCryofL/0rA X-Received: by 10.99.141.200 with SMTP id z191mr2982172pgd.99.1497495322610; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:55:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: pkelsey@gmail.com Received: by 10.100.181.165 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Jun 2017 19:55:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> From: Patrick Kelsey Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:55:21 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 56paheCxLqWKBUtlKaDciwcazZI Message-ID: Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' To: fcp@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.23 X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 02:55:24 -0000 On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:53 AM, FreeBSD Core Secretary < core-secretary@freebsd.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > Core has just presented their ideas for a new 'FreeBSD Community > Process' at BSDCan. This will provide a more formalized mechanism for > proposing and deciding on important or contentious changes within the > Project. The idea is to avoid discussions degenerating into an > interminable argument on the mailing lists with ultimately no action > being taken. > > The FCP process is modelled on similar ideas in other projects, > particularly the Python Enhancement Process > (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/), the Joyent RFD Process > (https://github.com/joyent/rfd/blob/master/README.md), and even the > venerable IETF RFC Process > (https://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html) > > In summary, anyone wanting to make a change that will result in a > non-trivial effect on the FreeBSD User Base, (or retrospectively anyone > having backed out a change after running into contention over something > that turned out less trivial than they anticipated), should write down > what they propose to change, describing what problem they are trying to > solve, how they propose to solve it and what consequential impact this > will have. Contact the fcp-editors@ mailing list for assistance in > getting your proposal into releasable state. The document is then added > to the FCP index, committed into the FCP repository and published for > discussion. Each FCP proposal is a living document and will be updated > to reflect any conclusions resulting during the discussion. > > Once consensus has been achieved, or the discussion has gone on for > enough time, Core will vote on accepting the FCP. Core will be voting > according to the mood of the discussion around the proposal. > > The current state of fcp-0000.md -- the document that defines the FCP > process -- can be viewed at > > https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0000.md > > This is a working document and subject to change. We will be applying > the FCP process as far as possible to fcp-0000 itself: this message > counts as the formal announcement on the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list > placing fcp-0000 into 'feedback' status. Your contributions are > welcome, by email to the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list, or by submitting > issues or pull requests, or by annotating the fcp-0000.md document text > through GitHub. > > For help with generating a new FCP document and discussion around the > FCP process please join the fcp-editors@FreeBSD.org mailing list. > > Cheers, > > Matthew > I'm responding to the above message because I wasn't on the new fcp@ list in time to receive the FCP 0 announcement (https://lists.freebsd.org/pip ermail/freebsd-fcp/2017-June/000000.html). I suspect other developers are in a similar situation, so I'll point out that responding to the above message invites continued cross-posting between developers@ and the public fcp@. Here are my comments questions so far: FCP github repository - Who has write access to this repo? If that group is different from the group of potential FCP authors, then it should be made clear who this group is, as they will be deciding whether to honor merge requests for things like FCP number assignment and changes to FCP documents. Also, does this repository only exist on github, or is a mirror maintained on project-controlled infrastructure? FCP authorship - Who can be an FCP author and who can provide input? Anyone, or does at least one author have to be a committer, does it depend on topic, etc. Who is fcp-editors@? Is this some select group, or is it just a mailing list via which any interested party can provide 'editorial review'? Either way, how do 'editorial review' discussions not devolve into discussions that belong in the post-publication feedback phase? This process seems intended at least in part to be a structured approach to marshaling a proposed change to a decision point when there is an associated lack of consensus, and/or significant contention, and/or outright dispute involved. On this front, I think there are still some significant holes in the approach, or there are unstated assumptions that core@ (or perhaps fcp-editors@, if that is something other than just a mailing list) will be arbitrating at other points in the process besides the vote. Let's take the first example from FCP 0 of when an FCP should be written - when "A change lacks consensus or is significantly contended." The process as described involves an initial set of authors requesting an FCP number, and it is that initial set of authors that will prepare a draft, solicit feedback, and incorporate the changes to the document. In the face of a lack of consensus, significant contentions, or disputes (i.e., multiple competing viewpoints) regarding a change, who is this set of authors and which viewpoint gets drafted? I don't think we can reasonably say 'a set of authors representing all viewpoints' and/or 'somehow one author but all viewpoints get included', because then we are just moving the interminable argument to another medium, one that is possibly filtered by only one of the viewpoints. Do we wind up with an FCP for each viewpoint? That is, if the change is of the form "We Need Better X" and there is significant contention/dispute as to whether it is "Better X by Method A", "Better X by Method B", or "Better X by Method C", do we wind up with three competing FCPs, one proposing each? -Patrick From owner-freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Thu Jun 15 03:17:40 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fcp@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28A10BFE6CB for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:17:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from mx1.scaleengine.net (mx1.scaleengine.net [209.51.186.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3E241C7 for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:17:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.1.1.2] (unknown [10.1.1.2]) (Authenticated sender: allanjude.freebsd@scaleengine.com) by mx1.scaleengine.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B7C0137DD for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:17:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' To: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> From: Allan Jude Message-ID: <06f481e1-b8b5-d375-deab-5f4b5c13adb1@freebsd.org> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:17:31 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="b1Vxfb55aTTFNOABLgDxhWJhhLssS7tks" X-BeenThere: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Community Proposals List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 03:17:40 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --b1Vxfb55aTTFNOABLgDxhWJhhLssS7tks Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="oG0eG61sfg9Hi6wSOfftEF0DaI7K9h0Ri"; protected-headers="v1" From: Allan Jude To: freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org Message-ID: <06f481e1-b8b5-d375-deab-5f4b5c13adb1@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: --oG0eG61sfg9Hi6wSOfftEF0DaI7K9h0Ri Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017-06-14 22:55, Patrick Kelsey wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:53 AM, FreeBSD Core Secretary < > core-secretary@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 >> >> Dear all, >> >> Core has just presented their ideas for a new 'FreeBSD Community >> Process' at BSDCan. This will provide a more formalized mechanism for= >> proposing and deciding on important or contentious changes within the >> Project. The idea is to avoid discussions degenerating into an >> interminable argument on the mailing lists with ultimately no action >> being taken. >> >> The FCP process is modelled on similar ideas in other projects, >> particularly the Python Enhancement Process >> (https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/), the Joyent RFD Process >> (https://github.com/joyent/rfd/blob/master/README.md), and even the >> venerable IETF RFC Process >> (https://www.ietf.org/about/standards-process.html) >> >> In summary, anyone wanting to make a change that will result in a >> non-trivial effect on the FreeBSD User Base, (or retrospectively anyon= e >> having backed out a change after running into contention over somethin= g >> that turned out less trivial than they anticipated), should write down= >> what they propose to change, describing what problem they are trying t= o >> solve, how they propose to solve it and what consequential impact this= >> will have. Contact the fcp-editors@ mailing list for assistance in >> getting your proposal into releasable state. The document is then adde= d >> to the FCP index, committed into the FCP repository and published for >> discussion. Each FCP proposal is a living document and will be update= d >> to reflect any conclusions resulting during the discussion. >> >> Once consensus has been achieved, or the discussion has gone on for >> enough time, Core will vote on accepting the FCP. Core will be voting= >> according to the mood of the discussion around the proposal. >> >> The current state of fcp-0000.md -- the document that defines the FCP >> process -- can be viewed at >> >> https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0000.md >> >> This is a working document and subject to change. We will be applying= >> the FCP process as far as possible to fcp-0000 itself: this message >> counts as the formal announcement on the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list >> placing fcp-0000 into 'feedback' status. Your contributions are >> welcome, by email to the fcp@FreeBSD.org mailing list, or by submittin= g >> issues or pull requests, or by annotating the fcp-0000.md document tex= t >> through GitHub. >> >> For help with generating a new FCP document and discussion around the >> FCP process please join the fcp-editors@FreeBSD.org mailing list. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Matthew >> >=20 > I'm responding to the above message because I wasn't on the new fcp@ li= st > in time to receive the FCP 0 announcement (https://lists.freebsd.org/pi= p > ermail/freebsd-fcp/2017-June/000000.html). I suspect other developers = are > in a similar situation, so I'll point out that responding to the above > message invites continued cross-posting between developers@ and the pub= lic > fcp@. >=20 > Here are my comments questions so far: >=20 > FCP github repository - Who has write access to this repo? If that gro= up > is different from the group of potential FCP authors, then it should be= > made clear who this group is, as they will be deciding whether to honor= > merge requests for things like FCP number assignment and changes to FCP= > documents. Also, does this repository only exist on github, or is a mi= rror > maintained on project-controlled infrastructure? Currently those with write access are: bapt, benno, myself. This list will likely grow, but it is not exactly clear in what way yet. Likely with those in the fcp-editors group, or maybe we end up with a small team in the roll of fcp-secretary, like we have for core, portmgr, etc. >=20 > FCP authorship - Who can be an FCP author and who can provide input? > Anyone, or does at least one author have to be a committer, does it dep= end > on topic, etc. The process is open to anyone. >=20 > Who is fcp-editors@? Is this some select group, or is it just a mailin= g > list via which any interested party can provide 'editorial review'? Ei= ther > way, how do 'editorial review' discussions not devolve into discussions= > that belong in the post-publication feedback phase? Currently it is anyone who has volunteered. I think Warner is the only person who has done so to date. The point of the fcp-editors@ list will be to provide feedback and improve the draft of the proposal. Technical discussions should wait until the feedback phase. >=20 > This process seems intended at least in part to be a structured approac= h to > marshaling a proposed change to a decision point when there is an > associated lack of consensus, and/or significant contention, and/or > outright dispute involved. On this front, I think there are still some= > significant holes in the approach, or there are unstated assumptions th= at > core@ (or perhaps fcp-editors@, if that is something other than just a > mailing list) will be arbitrating at other points in the process beside= s > the vote. >=20 > Let's take the first example from FCP 0 of when an FCP should be writte= n - > when "A change lacks consensus or is significantly contended." The pro= cess > as described involves an initial set of authors requesting an FCP numbe= r, > and it is that initial set of authors that will prepare a draft, solici= t > feedback, and incorporate the changes to the document. In the face of = a > lack of consensus, significant contentions, or disputes (i.e., multiple= > competing viewpoints) regarding a change, who is this set of authors an= d > which viewpoint gets drafted? I don't think we can reasonably say 'a s= et > of authors representing all viewpoints' and/or 'somehow one author but = all > viewpoints get included', because then we are just moving the intermina= ble > argument to another medium, one that is possibly filtered by only one o= f > the viewpoints. Do we wind up with an FCP for each viewpoint? That is= , if > the change is of the form "We Need Better X" and there is significant > contention/dispute as to whether it is "Better X by Method A", "Better = X by > Method B", or "Better X by Method C", do we wind up with three competin= g > FCPs, one proposing each? >=20 It is the intention of the FCP process that if there are multiple different solutions, that each would have its own document, and one would be selected, and other others would be closed as 'rejected in favor of #B'. >=20 > -Patrick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fcp@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fcp > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fcp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >=20 The process is still quite fluid, we will not know how to best make this all work until we have put the first few proposals through the process and seen how it works. Other groups like OpenDTrace, Joyent, and Python are using similar processes very successfully, but FreeBSD is a much larger project, so I am sure it will present its own challenges, but I am sure we'll be able to overcome them. --=20 Allan Jude --oG0eG61sfg9Hi6wSOfftEF0DaI7K9h0Ri-- --b1Vxfb55aTTFNOABLgDxhWJhhLssS7tks Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZQfxOAAoJEBmVNT4SmAt+pv0P+gO0uKsV+GDVp8V98ZCPEUpp sA2KL4g2+2n7hPVZicAjwiyTCX8Xf7nq6CfBPqQo1CyhNtQ9CPwowM2s2S+Vg03w XWVHUa4idFnNC1dIACyVPX2spNcjvDwKPPHeEM4Z/DJuLLiWqHaS1+WYx90GvKGT mxVLISxBGLbBRKPJb0zsqDrQcyOeYOubXfnSuudQotjTd2ER/c6Rc2n8Z8qDW7Ah 6gJxyy6PSx9upQu0merK+p7NWGyHZBhS3Ps+Dmqiv2ma9STEQrFrgHlasRsfWOzu G2N1o8txCIYgcYQNYx40ii7RSEkiEd/SSM9eXtUo3CpaibT7CeISmC9/xYUU5JLU KParst0f/czi6XfWC7BJM2+wz0HngrgsmyK+ep9ivSKQjs9mjGpOiTskN03ubRWl dPsJLw5tJQ4JBjOWWPB54KnSBEt9tZuRfYZYPBH0TQvVxNruFkpn0XdgO/1ug95I /WpVfCC6pUHxQ7VS/ofOVL7toUzDglXAVhsg92A8fU61+VI/+chMY4toGp6jwY9W eZEVD5ez67R6YtpjbFpGmcozxgTt8iqh++HOpSBKXBJIWLacSTW519KLRrVMZxgE virx7zr+iEM8zQ8w3gsuyUM/5+rgjMNlLZ0AHwReaJ0zq5rwOxzc5R1JK5Xzo0t1 IkPmpN0LTZ9HSoWQzy7W =AB+h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --b1Vxfb55aTTFNOABLgDxhWJhhLssS7tks--