2023-05-30 Nixpkgs Architecture Team Meeting #39

[Infinisil]

• Past meeting notes
• Recording
• Matrix announcement
• Recorded and lead by: @infinisil
• Meeting notes by: @growpotkin, @infinisil
• Attendees: @infinisil @roberth @growpotkin @Ericson2314, non-members: @j-k @wanja

Notes

RFC 140

• All shepherds accepted the RFC and are now requesting FCP.
• Some discussions are happening, but none that require changes to the RFC:
  • On Matrix, a discussion about how to deal with documenting the RFC
    • Conclusion is that minor changes to the standard to allow better documentation are obviously allowed
  • On Matrix, a discussion about requiring approval by the NAT for changes to the RFC.
    • Conclusion is that this is a more general problem and should go into a separate RFC.
  • On Matrix and GitHub,
  • Some criticism by @edolstra, mostly already addressed by the RFC contents and other comments in the thread

Packages Modules WG

Progressing nicely, merged some PR’s, see pkgs-modules/meetings at main · nixpkgs-architecture/pkgs-modules · GitHub

RFC process discussion happening on discourse

Improving our RFC process

I’ve written and shepherded a handful of RFCs over the years, and noticed that some frustration points about our RFC process keep coming up again. I think that it is now time for us to reflect on our past experiences with this, and discuss how to improve things going forward. So, let’s share your experiences you’ve had with our RFC process so far. I’ll start with a minor annoyance, that the FCP process is under-specified. Who actually declares FCP? Is it the shepherds, or is it the steering …

(after the meeting)

Consider looking at significant issues in these meetings.