Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:55:21 -0400 From: Patrick Kelsey <pkelsey@freebsd.org> To: fcp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' Message-ID: <CAD44qMWrRxEvgKNacDh5uAvtaGw6-PmRq=qvp5Xg2%2B%2Bq6dOfTA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <f6c69173-bd27-c5a7-7b61-611564fc4d30@FreeBSD.org> References: <539e27d3-4eca-463a-75d4-667d3fec90f6@FreeBSD.org> <f6c69173-bd27-c5a7-7b61-611564fc4d30@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAD44qMWrRxEvgKNacDh5uAvtaGw6-PmRq=qvp5Xg2%2B%2Bq6dOfTA>