Record four answers from the plan decision issue - #193
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Entry one of #46 is answered and #179 asks for the record. GPL-3.0, and one licence for both the runner and the experiment content. The reason is where a result goes when it is wanted: the twelve plugin boards of this organisation all carry GPL-3.0, read one repository at a time through the platform's licence field, so a hand-over under record 0005 names terms the receiving board already has. Three other boards carry AGPL-3.0, which is why the record calls this a choice between two neighbourhoods rather than a house style. The record carries the cost in the permissive direction, because that cost is real and does not go away by being unwritten, and it lists the four options entry one names with what each would have cost. Three things it says that a reader would otherwise assume. The file on the default branch is AGPL-3.0 today, so the answer and the file disagree until #47 lands. What this repository declares to the checks that read a licence is empty and is a different thing from what the platform detects. And adding a licence does not place the commits made before it under those terms. Refs #179. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
Entry three of #46 is answered and #181 asks for the record. A result may be promoted into a board under different terms only with the contributor's explicit consent, given at promotion time. The consent is a Consent line in the promotion section rather than a conversation somebody remembers, because the question it gets asked in is whether a contributor agreed months after the person who asked them has stopped thinking about it. The record names record 0005 and says what moved: that section now names a fifth thing. It does not supersede 0005, because everything else that record fixes stands and a supersession line would tell a reader the whole of it had been replaced. What that costs is written down rather than left for a reader to hit: 0005's sentence that the section names four things is wrong read on its own, and nothing in 0005 says so. What reads the line is stated as it stands. The property that reads the promotion section names four things today, so nothing refuses a section that names no consent, and the route that changes it is record 0013. That route also decides the shape: a refusal on an absent field is what 0013 forbids, and the available shape is the one the four fields already have. No record on this board carries a promotion section today, so the fifth name reddens nothing when it lands. The sign-off gate is named as not covering this. What a contributor certifies there is their right to contribute under this project's licence, which says nothing about a different licence elsewhere. Refs #181. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
Entry six of #46 is answered and #183 asks for the record. Ninety days from the report, the window published in the security policy, and exactly one written extension on a reasoned request. The record names record 0010 and says what moved. That record decides which experiments do not start here in public and what has to be true before the record is written, and says in its own words that the waiting and the listing are not decided there. Both are decided here and nothing else in 0010 moves. What the listing shows while a record waits is settled as a field beside the state rather than as a fourth state. The record stays in asking and carries a Held-back date, and the listing prints that as its own dated line, which discloses that something exists and nothing a reader could act on. Where that answer is not free is written at it. Record 0003 and record-state-is-not-one-of-the-three stay exactly as they are, so the listing prints a line no refusal governs, and the field is optional under record 0013, so a held-back record that omits it sits in asking with a question that says nothing and nothing refuses that. The ninety days is not in SECURITY.md today and the record says so. It also separates the window from that file's existing sentence about there being no response deadline, which runs in the opposite direction and stands. Refs #183. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
Entry eight of #46 is answered and #185 asks for the record. This board takes experiments from anybody. The residual is what the record is mostly for. The cost is not review effort. It is that three rules here depend on a person having read them before they start, and somebody arriving for the first time is the person least likely to have read any of them. The three are named rather than gestured at: what may never be committed, in record 0006 and in the contributing guide; what happens when an experiment finds a flaw in shipped software, in record 0010; and what an experiment may do with real data, which is the one this board has not finished writing. Nothing refuses a violation of any of the three, and the record says so with the guide's own line. The nearest thing to a mechanism is the credential-shape scan, whose source calls itself a floor and not a guarantee, and what it cannot see is listed rather than implied. The answer belongs in the first paragraph of the contributing guide with the three linked from it. That guide carries none of this today, so the record fixes where the sentence goes and says the edit is owed. Refs #185. Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Closes #179
Closes #181
Closes #183
Closes #185
Four answers from #46 written down where a decision lives. Four records
under
docs/decisions/and nothing else, which is why they share onebranch: each separate landing moves the mainline under the others, and
these four touch no file any of them shares.
What this changes
0018-the-licence-of-this-board.md, for #179. GPL-3.0, and one licence forboth the runner and the experiment content. The reason is the direction a
result actually moves: the twelve plugin boards of this organisation all
carry GPL-3.0, so a hand-over under record
0005names terms the receivingboard already has, and three other boards carry AGPL-3.0, which is why the
record calls this a choice between two neighbourhoods rather than a house
style. It carries the cost in the permissive direction, lists the four
options entry one names with what each would have cost, and says three
things a reader would otherwise assume: that the file at the root is
AGPL-3.0 today so the answer and the file disagree until #47 lands, that
what this repository declares to the checks is empty and is a different
thing from what the platform detects, and that adding a licence does not
place the commits made before it under those terms.
0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.md, for #181. A result may bepromoted into a board under different terms only with the contributor's
explicit consent, given at promotion time, written as a
Consent:line inthe promotion section. The record names record
0005and says what moved,and it does not supersede it, because everything else
0005fixes standsand a supersession line would tell a reader the whole of it had been
replaced. What that costs is written rather than left to be found:
0005'ssentence that the section names four things is wrong read on its own, and
nothing in
0005says so. It states that the sign-off gate does not coverthis, and that a step at promotion time is a step that will sometimes be
skipped.
0022-how-long-a-held-back-record-waits.md, for #183. Ninety days from thereport, published in the security policy, with exactly one written
extension on a reasoned request. It names record
0010and says whatmoved. The design question it had to settle is settled as a field beside
the state rather than as a fourth state: the record stays in
askingandcarries a
Held-back:date, and the listing prints that as its own datedline.
0024-who-may-run-an-experiment-here.md, for #185. This board takesexperiments from anybody. It names the three rules a newcomer must have
read, says the answer belongs in the first paragraph of
CONTRIBUTING.mdwith those three linked from it, and lists both rejected options with what
each would have cost.
Means: Markdown under
docs/decisions/, which is the form record0000fixes for a decision record and the one three checks already read. It adds
no language, no runtime and no dependency, and
decision-record-is-missing-a-section,two-decision-records-share-a-numberandsupersession-names-a-record-that-is-not-therejudge these four exactly asthey judge the twenty-one already there.
What failure it prevents
A decision that exists only in an issue. Record
0000says it plainly: therecord is what survives the argument, and a decision that lives in a
tracker thread has no current state, reads as three decisions where it was
revised twice, and loses its source the day the tracker moves. Four answers
were taken on 2026-08-24 and four issues were opened to write them down;
until they are written down the plan depends on four sentences in a closed
issue.
The second failure is narrower and is the reason each record is longer than
its answer. Every one of these four answers has a cost that lands on
somebody who did not take it, and a record that carries the answer without
the cost reads as though the answer were free. The permissive direction
closing, a consent step that will be skipped under pressure, an extension
request nobody answers, and three unenforced rules a newcomer has to have
read are each written at the answer they belong to.
What was run
At
29bd767ca5881079b0c81c8af9d5f190b01dd1f0, the commandsCONTRIBUTING.mdnames, from the root of the checkout:
The prose format is the check most likely to be moved by four new
documents, so it was read rather than assumed:
Every command each record pastes was run before the sentence resting on it
was written, and two pastes were corrected against what the command
returned rather than against what was expected. The licence readings were
taken one repository at a time through
gh api repos/Flowfin/<name> --jq '.license.spdx_id', which is the reading behind the twelve and the three;the loop the record hands a reader derives the same population and was not
the command that produced those numbers.
This change removes no tracked path.
What this does not do
None of the four records is a mechanism, and each says so where it matters.
0020says nothing refuses a promotion section that names no consenttoday, and that the route that would change it is record
0013, which alsoforbids the shape a reader would reach for first.
0022says the field itintroduces is optional under
0013, so a held-back record that omits it isnot refused and sits in
askingsaying nothing, and that record0003andrecord-state-is-not-one-of-the-threestay exactly as they are, so thelisting prints a line no refusal governs.
0024says nothing refuses aviolation of any of the three rules it names, and lists what the
credential-shape scan cannot see rather than leaving the scan to be read as
cover.
Two edits these records say are owed are not in this change, and neither is
in the done-condition of the issue that asks for the record. The ninety days
has to reach
SECURITY.md, and it is not there. The answer to entry eighthas to reach the first paragraph of
CONTRIBUTING.mdwith the three ruleslinked from it, and that paragraph carries none of it. Both are named in the
records as owed and each needs its own issue.
0018does not change the licence file. The root of this branch stillcarries AGPL-3.0 and the platform still reports it; #47 is what lands the
file, the declaration and the line in
README.md, and until it does therecord and the file disagree.
This board has no second reader tonight. What stands in place of one is the
evidence above: every record is judged by the three decision-record
refusals in the run quoted, the prose format was read at the pushed commit,
and every command pasted inside the records reproduces at
origin/main.