| 8 Mar 2023 |
|  @sbc64:matrix.org joined the room. | 13:01:09 |
 infinisil | Turns out we made an oversight for RFC 140: Authors (including co-authors) can't be part of the shepherd team, so none of the formal Nixpkgs Architecture Team can participate as a shepherd. | 16:41:27 |
| infinisil | * Turns out we made an oversight for RFC 140: Authors (including co-authors) can't be part of the shepherd team, so none of the formal Nixpkgs Architecture Team can participate as a shepherd. | 16:41:44 |
| infinisil | So there's currently no shepherds for the RFC, but we need a team of 3-4 shepherds to get the RFC progressing, and it's already been over a month since it was opened. Are there people from this channel that are interested in nominating themselves as shepherds? | 16:48:06 |
 @profpatsch:augsburg.one | infinisil: can’t you delete some of the authors? | 16:48:30 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | nobody said you can’t do that :) | 16:48:38 |
| infinisil | Profpatsch: That's super fishy, I can't do that with good faith! | 16:49:00 |
| infinisil | Going by code, only me and Robert Hensing (roberth) are authors yes, but the entire team worked together on the idea and are already in agreement about it | 16:50:26 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | infinisil: I’d say if you note that in a comment, I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t make up like half the shepherd team from people in this channel | 16:51:13 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | And if nobody else has an interest, fill the rest as well | 16:51:24 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | It’s not like this is a company with profit motives, the contrary | 16:51:41 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | Otherwise the Architecture Team kinda invalidates itself if it can’t get RFCs pushed through | 16:52:12 |
 @piegames:matrix.org | I've run into this entire problem before, and the concept of "authors and shepherds are distinct" kind of fails apart for RFC that are developed by a team like this | 16:52:39 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Technically RFC 101 has exactly the same situation | 16:52:53 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | Maybe there should be some kind of “if you want to veto, you have to be a shepherd” | 16:53:11 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | Or “if you veto, you are automatically made a shepherd” | 16:53:21 |
| infinisil | In reply to @piegames:matrix.org
Technically RFC 101 has exactly the same situation Oh yeah, it's now the shepherds working on the RFC.. | 16:53:35 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Yep | 16:53:47 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | I feel like the process is now actively hindering productive changes | 16:54:07 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | Yet another way our RFC process is fundamentally broken ^^ | 16:54:17 |
| infinisil | So, is this RFC blocked on making a separate RFC to change the RFC process to allow authors to be part of the shepherd team? | 16:54:22 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | no | 16:54:28 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | I’d say just mention it, and proceed | 16:54:39 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | Then you can always said you mentioned the problem and nobody veto’d | 16:54:52 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | s/said/say | 16:55:04 |
| infinisil | Hmm that might work yeah, will have to be properly talked about with the steering committee though | 16:55:15 |
| @piegames:matrix.org | No, but eventually we'd have to fix our process to better match reality. And the RFC-in-repo thing is definitely a first step towards that (even though I personally don't agree with the direction it's taking) | 16:55:32 |
| infinisil | And get an official special pass for that RFC | 16:55:40 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | infinisil: maybe start a parallel discussion on discourse | 16:55:44 |
| @profpatsch:augsburg.one | And mention it from the RFC | 16:55:50 |
