| 29 May 2023 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | done | 14:45:39 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | infinisil Maybe please do another pass through the backlog and mark some of the conversation threads as resolved | 14:46:14 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Who is responsible for creating the Discourse announcement? After scrolling through https://discourse.nixos.org/c/announcements/rfc-announcements/22, I'm a bit uncertain | 14:53:16 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | The RFC process does not specify this, unfortunately | 14:53:42 |
 infinisil | piegames: I'd say it doesn't matter | 15:41:24 |
| infinisil | piegames: Imo go for it! | 15:44:39 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | hah | 15:45:20 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | the question has been resolved by the fact that I apparently don't even have rights to post in that category … | 15:45:35 |
| infinisil | Huh, I didn't even know that was a thing | 15:45:55 |
| infinisil | piegames: I should be able to, can you send me the content? | 15:46:30 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Haven't written it yet. But see the other posts in that category, they either use a copy-paste template or just straight up only contain the link to the PR | 15:47:29 |
| infinisil | Hmm: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/rfc-0052-fcp-away-from-static-ids/4291 | 15:47:49 |
| infinisil | Oh, it should be the RFC announcements category right? https://discourse.nixos.org/t/bootspec-rfc-now-in-fcp/26598 | 15:48:07 |
| infinisil | Yeah I can't post there either 😅 | 15:48:50 |
| infinisil | Linux Hackerman: As part of the steering committee, can you announce FCP on Discourse? | 15:49:40 |
| infinisil | That's https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/140, also label it as FCP | 15:50:04 |
| infinisil | piegames: Oh can you also indicate in your FCP comment that all shepherds have accepted the RFC? | 15:55:30 |
| infinisil | piegames: Oh and also indicate that FCP hasn't started officially because we're waiting on the steering committee. The 10 days should only start once the discourse announcement is made | 15:57:09 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Yeah, that too is one of the things that are kind of underspecified IMO | 15:58:01 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Currently collecting these for a separate forum post about our process, to hopefully get them fixed this time | 15:58:28 |
| infinisil | I think it should be an RFC to amend the RFC process :P | 15:59:10 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | I know, wouldn't be the first one | 15:59:34 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | always start a discussion first though | 15:59:37 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Also I honestly don't want to write yet another RFC at the moment . | 15:59:59 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | * Also I honestly don't want to write yet another RFC at the moment … | 16:00:00 |
| infinisil | Frankly, the RFC process having some flaws is minor compared to actually resolving controversy in the content of RFC's | 16:00:44 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | I think it makes sense for a different group to decide FCP. It's an essential part of the process that gives legitimacy to the process and therefore the RFC. We shouldn't be able to push an RFC through by declaring FCP before resolving questions. Whether questions have been resolved reasonably can therefore only be decided by a separate group, which is the RFC committee. | 16:04:18 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Robert Hensing (roberth) I think your statement strongly depends on the perspective and role in which you view an RFC's shepherds | 16:05:44 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Changing that would speed up the RFC process by perhaps two weeks on average, at the cost of the legitimacy of RFCs in general. | 16:05:52 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Because one could also argue that this precisely the shepherds' job. | 16:06:26 |
