On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 5:02 AM Bob Bishop <rb at gid.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 24 Oct 2018, at 01:23, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 6:02 PM Rodney W. Grimes <
> > freebsd-rwg at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> >
> >> -- Start of PGP signed section.
> >>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 04:26:45PM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes
wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 5:07 PM Rodney W. Grimes <
> >>>>> freebsd-rwg at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:33:35PM +0200,
Julian H. Stacey wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I'd also suggest that rl stands in
stark contrast to the cs,
> >> wb, sn,
> >>>>>> smc,
> >>>>>>>>> sf, tl, tx and vr drivers, which
nobody has mentioned in this
> >>>>>> thread, and
> >>>>>>>>> which I doubt are in use in any
FreeBSD system of any age
> >> today.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> vr is used by my TV driver laptop:
> >>>>>>>>
http://www.berklix.com/~jhs/hardware/laptops/novatech-8355/
> >>>>>>>> vr0:
flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric
> >> 0 mtu
> >>>>>> 1500
> >>>>>>>>
options=82808<VLAN_MTU,WOL_UCAST,WOL_MAGIC,LINKSTATE>
> >>>>>>>> ether 00:40:d0:5e:26:38
> >>>>>>>> inet 192.168.91.65 netmask
0xffffff00 broadcast
> >> 192.168.91.255
> >>>>>>>> media: Ethernet autoselect
(100baseTX
> >>>>>> <full-duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause>)
> >>>>>>>> status: active
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Which currently runs 8.4-RELEASE & eg
xrandr, but I'll upgrade
> >> soon
> >>>>>>>> when I also configure it to receive from a
raspberry-pi TV VPN
> >> server.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The above was a typo. vr is on the the STAY
list.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -- Brooks
> >>>>>> Brooks,
> >>>>>> Is there a public revised version of
FCP-0101 that
> >> reflects the
> >>>>>> feedback which is what core is voting on?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Its on github, just like it's been the whole time
for anybody to see,
> >>>>> submit pull requests against and track:
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no gh account, desires no gh account, so have no
way to
> >>>> submit a change request other than through direct email to
> >>>> brooks or another gh user. This is fundementally flawed.
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://github.com/freebsd/fcp/blob/master/fcp-0101.md
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for the link, I had looked at it before MeetBSD,
> >>>> which did not have most of the recent changes done "a
day ago".
> >>>>
> >>>> Isnt this document now in a frozen state while core
reviews/votes?
> >>>
> >>> I sent it to a vote at
c224c67557297d7cba909ad008542cb60980cc6b only
> >>> to notice a bug in table rendering. I submitted a pull
request fix
> >>> that and a missing word which was merged since neither was
material. I
> >>> suppose they could have waited or been skipped, but
there's no value in
> >>> the FCP process being bound by the sort of pointless rigidity
that led
> >>> to -DPOSIX_MISTAKE in every libc compile line.
> >>
> >> The FCP process itself is unclear on this point,
> >> I think this should be clarified.
> >>
> >> It is much more clear on post approval:
> >> Changes after acceptance
> >>
> >> FCPs may need revision after they have been moved into the
> >> accepted state. In such cases, the author SHOULD update the
> >> FCP to reflect the final conclusions.
> >> If the changes are major, the FCP SHOULD be withdrawn
> >> and restarted.
> >>
> >
> > Good point Rod. While common sense suggests that trivial changes
during
> the
> > voting should be allowed for editorial purposes (eg fix grammar
mistakes,
> > table rendering etc), it's better to spell that out so there's
no
> confusion.
> >
> > diff --git a/fcp-0000.md b/fcp-0000.md
> > index b4fe0f3..c8cc6f7 100644
> > --- a/fcp-0000.md
> > +++ b/fcp-0000.md
> > @@ -144,7 +144,10 @@ When the discussion of a change has come to a
> suitable
> > and acceptable close it
> > SHOULD be updated to the `vote` state.
> >
> > At this time the FreeBSD Core Team will vote on the subject of the
FCP.
> The
> > -result of vote moves the FCP into the `accepted` or `rejected` state.
> > +result of vote moves the FCP into the `accepted` or `rejected` state.
> The
> > +core team MAY make minor edits to the FCP to correct minor mistakes.
> Core
> > +MAY return the proposal to the submitter if there are major problems
> that
> > +need to be addressed.
>
> This is a Bad Idea, because it relies on common understanding of what is
> minor. I was once involved with a standards body that had a procedure for
> so-called clerical errors intended to deal with typos, punctuation etc;
> this worked just fine until somebody claimed that the omission of the word
> ?not? in a particular place was clearly a clerical error.
>
This documents procedure. It's not law. Trying to read it as law is a
mistake: it's written to be brief and descriptive, not through and
prescriptive. And that's on purpose. Axiom 1 of the bylaws is that you can
trust the core team, which is why the power grant is total and unequivocal:
Core is the governing body of the project. If you can't trust the core team
and need anything more, you've already list. And over the years core's
biggest failing isn't some fleet of black helicopters dispatched to take
out critics or other shenanigans. It's either been not doing enough for the
situation (due to too little time and/or a mistaken impression that they
couldn't do anything), or it's lack of clear communication either
between
the different 'hats' and core or between core and the rest of the
project.
Warner