A team of 3-4 community members defined unanimously by the RFC Steering Committee, responsible for accepting or rejecting a specific RFC. This team is created per RFC from community members nominated in the discussion on that RFC.
This team should be people who are very familiar with the main components touched by the RFC. The author cannot be part of the Shepherd Team. In addition, at most half of the Shepherd Team can be part of the RFC Steering Committee.
The resposibility of the team is to guide the discussion as long as it is constructive, new points are brought up and the RFC is iterated on and from time to time summarise the current state of discussion. If this is the case no longer, then the Shepherd Team shall step in with a motion for FCP.
The person in charge of the RFC process for a specific RFC, and responsible for ensuring the process is followed in a timely fashion. The Shepherd Leader has no special resposibility with regard to moving an undecided Shepherd Team to a certain decision.
Shepherds, please be reminded that it could make sense to have a chat on IRC or by videoconferece, to discuss your opinions and with the author to move this forward in an orderly and constructive way!
Make usage of
cmakeFlags in Nixpkgs more ergonomic by representing them as structured data in the form of attribute sets, and passing them more intelligently to the builder.
A practical proposal to store build products under their output hash instead of their input hash.
Package maintainers who are not able to commit directly to Nixpkgs
don’t have adequate tools to attentively maintain their package.
OfBorg requests reviews of maintainers it can identify. GitHub only
allows requesting a review of a Collaborator of the repository.
This RFC bridges that gap, and allows OfBorg to request reviews of