Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[RFC 0093] Propose RFC Categories #93

Closed
wants to merge 29 commits into from
Closed
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
29 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9fe54e6
Start: Propose RFC Categories
May 20, 2021
cd48c4d
Add some "meat" (feedback @asymmetric)
May 20, 2021
fdc9d5d
Fixup wordings / typos
May 20, 2021
141b575
Differentiate RFC templates
Jun 11, 2021
986d268
Move all "legacy" RFCs into correct categories
Jun 11, 2021
db237d5
Update Readme with RFC Categories (implied) changes
Jun 11, 2021
4478db4
Polish wording a bit, update where in order
Jun 12, 2021
be5eb70
fixup: typo
Jun 12, 2021
653c373
fixup: typo
Jun 12, 2021
8359e65
Add Shepherds
blaggacao Jul 11, 2021
b2d5489
Revert "Move all "legacy" RFCs into correct categories"
blaggacao Jul 21, 2021
e9bea2a
... and use metadata instead as discussed in last shepherd meeting
blaggacao Jul 21, 2021
d8172a6
Exemplify and extend motivation ("more meat")
blaggacao Jul 21, 2021
bca690e
Update templates & clarify "stakeholder"
blaggacao Jul 21, 2021
3017cb6
fix RFC46 categorization after having a closer look
blaggacao Jul 21, 2021
0a7063a
Examples & Interactions wording
blaggacao Jul 21, 2021
9861b53
Update 0000-template-informational.md
Jul 21, 2021
defa62d
Update 0000-template-process.md
Jul 21, 2021
5a91b5f
Update README.md
Jul 21, 2021
f6b1f0e
fix: wordings
Jul 26, 2021
c5817cd
fix: wordings
Jul 26, 2021
9649d54
fixup: typo
Jul 26, 2021
e817588
fix: wordings
Jul 26, 2021
91a7376
fix: wordings
Jul 26, 2021
dee0b81
fix: wordings
Jul 26, 2021
5145689
Revert readme related changes
blaggacao Aug 30, 2021
2268ea8
Re-add related readme changes
blaggacao Aug 30, 2021
6ed720b
Fix metadata
blaggacao Aug 30, 2021
140779e
Add index as suggested to make this RFC immediately more useful
blaggacao Aug 30, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
fix: wordings
Co-authored-by: Kevin Cox <kevincox@kevincox.ca>
David Arnold and kevincox authored Jul 26, 2021

Partially verified

This commit was created on GitHub.com and signed with GitHub’s verified signature. The key has expired.
We cannot verify signatures from co-authors, and some of the co-authors attributed to this commit require their commits to be signed.
commit c5817cd0053d9493f29739c86e8c782abab958e9
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion rfcs/0093-rfc-categories.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ binding changes to community workflows or infrastructure.
considered a failed RFC process, might have benefited from a framework to transition into
a general experiment in the form of an _informational_ RFC as soon as it had become
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If flakes would've been an informational RFC, then I think the word informational is a misnomer.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@blaggacao blaggacao Jul 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It might be. I'd be happy to hear suggestions.

A better name for something that does not primarily originate in a change.

Let's keep in mind that everything can be technically interpreted as change, but contrasting with the other two categories, this category attempts to create a "space for RFC-style consensus" that does not primarily propose a change.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the flake RFC had similar problems, but maybe wouldn't be solved exactly by this proposal.

I think it was a problem that we couldn't merge an RFC with the intent to experiment. This is an example of an issue specifying the desired outcome. It is very common for people to focus on "I want to make X easier" without saying the "implied" bit of "I want to make a technical change to Nix that makes X easier". For example maybe if we could add "I want to add an experimental feature to nix to make X easier. This could have guided reviewers that not every technical detail needs to be perfect and production read, as another RFC would be required to actually implement the stable feature once we have a lot more background. This could have helped the RFC be accepted with the right goals.

This sounds similar to this RFC where categories are a way of suggesting the desired outcome. feature implies that you want to make a change to Nix, Nixpkgs or whatever and informational means that you just want to get the community to agree on a fact or opinion with no other change. However the difference here is that flakes are not informational. The intention is to make a change to Nix, but maybe it would have helped to make a not officially supported change which is the key difference missing from the objective.

I do see a couple of ways to handle this:

  • Recommend that some or all technical features have an experiment first. (A two-step process by default).
  • Add an experimental category to help direct the review.

However I don't see this RFC doing either. So I think the example needs to be changed to not be putting the flakes RFC into a category in which it doesn't appear to fit. Either we need to find a category for it that would be expected to help the review process or we need to find a better example.

clear that it won't be accepted as a _feature_ RFC. Its subsequent closure has rendered
the entire flake experiment to a largely undocumented, unstructured, and intransparent
the entire flake experiment to a largely undocumented, unstructured, and opaque
process that still elicites strong opinions within the community. Clarity over RFC options
and venues _might_ have helped mitigate this situation.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you explain better how having categories would've helped in the case of flakes?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@blaggacao blaggacao Jul 21, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Categories act like a conceptual map. similar to a traditional map, they help navigate the process. I can't tell if it would have helped, but navigating with a (better) map seems indeed capable of improving the outcome (of navigation).

I resumed all that in the word clarity.

I'd hope this PR comment is enough to help posterity interpret, I fear the phrase might grow out of hand otherwise.