Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 12:38:07 -0700 From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> To: fcp@freebsd.org Cc: FreeBSD Developers <developers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Announcing the 'FreeBSD Community Process' Message-ID: <B72BD46B-0CBD-4517-9C90-5AC4A5D61FF3@me.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 Jun 13, 2017, at 23:53, FreeBSD Core Secretary = <core-secretary@FreeBSD.org> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B72BD46B-0CBD-4517-9C90-5AC4A5D61FF3>