| 20 Mar 2023 |
 raitobezarius | So my question is about: is NAT going to have a 2-level consensus mechanism for large scale changes to nixpkgs? (which are probably any big (re)work on nixpkgs) | 20:58:59 |
| raitobezarius | internal consensus to NAT team → RFC consensus | 20:59:09 |
 infinisil | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
That sounds a lot more reasonable, but it wouldn't include e.g. the Rust proposal I think that's in scope for this team because it's about the overall packaging approach, which can have big implications for the future. What if every package manager with a lockfile wants to commit the lockfiles? Would we blow up Nixpkgs too much? Couldn't we have a better sustainable solution for lockfiles? Etc. | 21:00:19 |
 Alyssa Ross | Yes, it might be in scope for the team, but the team hasn't yet earned any authority over it. | 21:00:57 |
| infinisil | Yeah | 21:01:40 |
| Alyssa Ross | Maybe I can summarize my concerns. Speaking as a collective team sounds like an attempt to speak authoratatively, almost by definition. Speaking authoratatively in areas where that authority hasn't been earned is going to rub people the wrong way. The Rust thing was an example of that, because the NAT, which has so far (due to being very young, not because you're not doing good work) not done anything in any way related to it. | 21:01:53 |
| infinisil | In any case, want me to change the comment? I don't want to make it seem like the team has authority over that, I really just meant the comment as a "we discussed this together and this is what came out of it" | 21:02:34 |
| Alyssa Ross | Nah | 21:03:03 |
| Alyssa Ross | I just wanted to give you the feedback for future | 21:03:32 |
| Alyssa Ross | And I feel like I've effectively communicated my concerns, and that you've understood them and taken them seriously. | 21:03:53 |
| Alyssa Ross | So I'm happy :) | 21:03:56 |
| Alyssa Ross | And I am still committed to getting consensus for the Rust change | 21:04:14 |
| Alyssa Ross | And that will involve talking to everybody who raised concerns about it, either as part of NAT or otherwise, and trying to get them on board. | 21:04:41 |
| infinisil | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
internal consensus to NAT team → RFC consensus That's the current idea yeah, though the RFC process has some flaws and is very very slow, I think infeasibly slow in the long run. At some point I'd like to propose that we (the entire community) can have something like fast-track RFCs, where we just create PR's with RFC-like descriptions to Nixpkgs, and announce those PR's the same way an FCP is announced (we can even pin the PR to the top!), with the same minimum waiting period. Just an idea for now though | 21:06:01 |
| Alyssa Ross | I think that having (earned) authority reside with open and accountable teams is going to be very healthy for the sustainability of Nixpkgs | 21:06:15 |
| infinisil | Oh and those PR's would of course have to be done and reviewed by a team of people (ilke the current RFCs require) | 21:06:41 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @infinisil:matrix.org
That's the current idea yeah, though the RFC process has some flaws and is very very slow, I think infeasibly slow in the long run. At some point I'd like to propose that we (the entire community) can have something like fast-track RFCs, where we just create PR's with RFC-like descriptions to Nixpkgs, and announce those PR's the same way an FCP is announced (we can even pin the PR to the top!), with the same minimum waiting period. Just an idea for now though I am definitely interested into fast track RFCs :) | 21:07:08 |
| Alyssa Ross | yeah that sounds like a promising direction | 21:08:13 |
| infinisil | And of course I'd go through the RFC process itself to propose changes to it :) | 21:08:29 |
| infinisil | Relevant: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/138 | 21:08:38 |
| Alyssa Ross | I love that idea too | 21:09:45 |
| Alyssa Ross | having RFCs on single PR threads is absolutely horrible | 21:09:59 |
| Alyssa Ross | I always wanted to move them to discourse, but having them in repos is even better I think | 21:10:09 |
| infinisil | Alyssa Ross: We do need a shepherd for that RFC :P | 21:11:41 |
| Alyssa Ross | In the last week I've been nominated for a shepherd team and joined the moderation team, so I think I need to make sure I can keep up with those commitments before I take on any more :P | 21:13:03 |
| infinisil | We did already have a meeting with the 2 shepherds (and me as an author), the third shepherd had to step down though due to time constraints. But I can say that this has been the cleanest and most focused RFC discussion I've experienced so far, especially withLinux Hackerman as a shepherd! | 21:13:19 |
| Alyssa Ross | i too am a linus fan | 21:13:48 |
| infinisil | In any case, feedback appreciated, there are unfortunately some downsides to the repo approach | 21:13:55 |
