| 31 May 2023 |
 infinisil | https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfc-0140-fcp-simple-package-paths/28589 🚀 | 14:31:12 |
| 1 Jun 2023 |
|  @niknetniko:matrix.org joined the room. | 12:45:56 |
| @niknetniko:matrix.org left the room. | 12:46:22 |
|  raphi changed their display name from raphi to raphi (element unread channel fix when). | 13:03:33 |
| 2 Jun 2023 |
|  mei 🌒& changed their display name from ckie (they/them; limited keyboard usage, voice preferred) to ckie (they/them). | 22:20:35 |
| 3 Jun 2023 |
|  @syphoxy:matrix.org joined the room. | 16:37:29 |
| 4 Jun 2023 |
|  @p01arst0rm:pixie.town left the room. | 12:23:59 |
|  @federicodschonborn:matrix.org changed their profile picture. | 17:40:33 |
| 5 Jun 2023 |
|  pajarove joined the room. | 21:45:17 |
| 6 Jun 2023 |
| infinisil | Robert Hensing (roberth): Could you lead the NAT meeting on 27 June? I'll be on vacation then | 14:17:58 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | infinisil sgtm 👍 | 15:02:27 |
| infinisil | Robert Hensing (roberth): Thanks! https://github.com/nixpkgs-architecture/.github/blob/master/hosting.md should explain everything. Can you go through the one-time setup there? | 15:34:39 |
| 9 Jun 2023 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | So, what do we do with RFC 140? | 16:17:04 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Also infinisil if you want to update the alternatives section with the new ideas and arguments that came up during FCP (mainly that discussion thread with QuantenZitrone), now would be a good time | 16:18:19 |
| infinisil | piegames: Yeah I'll do it this evening | 16:19:10 |
| infinisil | piegames: So, the rfc process doesn't state who decides over whether the FCP needs to be cancelled:
In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.
| 17:11:45 |
 hexa | I would expect the shepherd team to acknowledge that | 17:12:21 |
| infinisil | I think it should definitely be the shepherd team, as the steering committee shouldn't be involved in deciding RFCs | 17:12:24 |
| hexa | also probably not a good time to mention the issue of how badly legacyPackages was named? | 17:14:11 |
| hexa | naming things is bloody hard 😄 | 17:14:38 |
| infinisil | hexa: Is this rhetorical? Because that was just mentioned! See https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/140#issuecomment-1584882324 | 17:15:01 |
| hexa | uh, yes, it was rhetorical | 17:15:18 |
| hexa | I have not followed up on the thread, good that you mentioned it ig 🙂 | 17:15:41 |
| infinisil | hexa: The "not" in your sentence confused me a bit, I wasn't sure if you're saying it is a bad time and I shouldn't have brought it up again, or if it's a good time to bring it up :P | 17:17:19 |
| hexa | I mean, him choosing legacyPackages was much more confusing than either units or shards | 17:17:42 |
| hexa | so I don't get what the fuss is about | 17:17:57 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
piegames: So, the rfc process doesn't state who decides over whether the FCP needs to be cancelled:
In most cases, the FCP period is quiet, and the RFC is either merged or closed. However, sometimes substantial new arguments or ideas are raised, the FCP is canceled, and the RFC goes back into development mode.
Ack. I'm leaning on the "sometimes substantial new arguments", because while the opposition has been in parts strong, I'd argue that being for a proposal but against a name in it is not substantial | 17:20:05 |
| infinisil | phaer: j-k: growpotkin ( Alex Ameen ): piegames: As shepherds of RFC 140, do any of you think niksnut's recent criticism is a substantial new argument that requires canceling FCP and potentially changing the RFC? | 17:20:07 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Ha, good timing ^^
IMO it is neither new nor substantial | 17:20:37 |
 Eelco | I don't think it requires cancelling the FCP | 17:21:53 |
