[RFC 0025] Nix Core Team #25
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| feature: nix-core-team | ||
| start-date: 2018-01-31 | ||
| author: Graham Christensen | ||
| co-authors: Daniel Peebles, Eelco Dolstra, Peter Simons, Shea Levy, Vladimír Čunát | ||
| related-issues: | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| # Summary | ||
| [summary]: #summary | ||
|
|
||
| Create an experimental Nix Core Team to help lead the direction of | ||
| Nix. This RFC may not be perfect, and we don’t have good answers to | ||
| all the possible questions, but let’s try it. | ||
|
|
||
| # Motivation | ||
| [motivation]: #motivation | ||
|
|
||
| - Improve visibility in to how the project operates | ||
| - Distribute the work Eelco has been doing across more people | ||
| - "Unstuck" pull requests which are sitting idle | ||
| - Provide a more diverse group of experiences when evaluating changes | ||
| to core Nix | ||
|
|
||
| # Detailed design | ||
| [design]: #detailed-design | ||
|
|
||
| ## This team will: | ||
|
|
||
| - Evaluate larger features being proposed to Nix | ||
| - Serve as a second opinion on Nix changes that Eelco doesn't | ||
| otherwise see the value to | ||
| - Make road-mapping decisions | ||
| - Evaluate a change to determine if it is ready for inclusion | ||
| - Follow up on unreviewed pull requests | ||
|
|
||
| The core team will have a GitHub team, a public mailing list, and | ||
| perhaps an IRC channel. The team will comprise long-term, trusted | ||
| community members who have a deep understanding of Nix and the Nix | ||
| ecosystem. | ||
|
|
||
| ## To start with, the team will be: | ||
|
|
||
| - Daniel Peebles @copumpkin | ||
| - Eelco Dolstra @edolstra | ||
| - Peter Simons @peti | ||
| - Shea Levy @shlevy | ||
| - Vladimír Čunát @vcunat | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I've received a bunch of questions (mostly in private) about why I'm not on this list. To start with, I'm not sure why I should be on the list: this isn't really in my wheel-house. My role on putting this team together was primarily as a consensus-builder and trusted neutral party. I'm happy to continue helping in that capacity as the team sees fit. There was a problem hiding this comment. While I appreciate the sentiment outlined here with respect to your inclusion, I would posit that as a community advocate your position on such a team would certainly have very valuable input. There was a problem hiding this comment. I think the RFC still leave open to have a similar arrangement for Nixpkgs/NixOS itself. |
||
|
|
||
| The team will be considered experimental to encourage revisiting how | ||
| the processes work and refining them over time. We encourage the use | ||
| of the RFC process to guide the process of the team itself. We | ||
| explicitly invite the wider community to propose RFCs to help with | ||
| this. | ||
|
|
||
| Ultimately, we hope for a similar process to develop for NixOS as | ||
| well. | ||
|
|
||
| This experiment will run for one year, to allow for a few Nix and | ||
| NixOS releases. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Making Decisions | ||
|
|
||
| In all cases, the team will strive to reach consensus. However, | ||
| consensus will not always be possible. Decisions will be made after | ||
| four out of five members vote for approval. | ||
|
|
||
| Votes are registered through `+1`s and `-1`s. `Looks good to me`, `I | ||
| don't know`s and `I'm not sure`s aren't votes. | ||
|
|
||
| If some members abstain from the discussion, the following voting | ||
| rules apply: | ||
|
|
||
| 1. In any case, if two people are -1 on a proposal, it fails. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. This is great, I would also love to add that -1's need to have reasons such as:
While I would hope that members of this group would always do this, it seems helpful to codify that a negation of a proposal needs to come with the motivations that went into that response for transparency and discussion. |
||
| 2. If after a sufficient period of time (to be determined later,) if | ||
| only one person is -1 on a proposal and two or more people are +1, | ||
| it passes. | ||
|
|
||
| ## What this team is not | ||
|
|
||
| This team is not about infrastructure, Nixpkgs, NixOS, Hydra, or the | ||
| Foundation. This team is to focus very narrowly on Nix. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. So the Nix core team would not decide on RFCs like the musl pull request? There was a problem hiding this comment. Correct. If this goes through and works out well we may replicate it or expand it to cover a wider scope. |
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the longer term goal here to distribute consensus for vision/scope changes of NixOS to a wider group than just one person? Can we rephrase it so it isn't about the negative perception of a specific person? Perhaps: "Will approve Nix changes and steering for the long term vision"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Further future could be wished-for here, but I understand the intention as an incremental process: let's try this first and after some time we'll better see where to go next.