Re: [PATCH v3] doc: describe the project's decision-making process

[Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>]

On 2024.05.16 15:01, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
> > Changes in V3:
> > * Squash in Junio's suggested patch to remove discussion of small-scale
> >   patch series.
> 
> I do not think I deserve Co-authorship for the small changes in the
> remaining document, as my contributions going from v2 to v3 were
> mostly line removal ;-).

All right, switched it to Helped-by :)

> > +Larger Discussions (with patches)
> > +---------------------------------
> 
> Reads well and looks sensible.
> 
> > +Larger Discussions (without patches)
> > +------------------------------------
> > +Occasionally, larger discussions might occur without an associated patch series.
> > +These might be very large-scale technical decisions that are beyond the scope of
> > +...
> 
> I do not know how strongly assertive you wanted to be, but I suspect
> that it will read better with "might" -> "may".

Fixed here and in the next line.

> > ...
> > +For larger discussions without a patch series or other concrete implementation,
> > +it may be hard to judge when consensus has been reached, as there are not any
> > +official guidelines. If discussion stalls at this point, it may be helpful to
> > +restart discussion with an RFC patch series or other specific implementation
> > +that can be more easily debated.
> 
> It is a bit fuzzy what "other specific implementation" wants to
> convey.  A mere "RFC" is often an unfinished work-in-progress, and
> if the "other specific implementation" is different from it, then
> what it would be?  A minimum viable product?  A proof-of-concept?

Ack, will reword this.

> 
> All other parts did read very well.
> 
> Not that the above was unreadable, but just my reading hiccupped at
> around "other specific implementation".
> 
> Thanks.