From 7eed5eff6999fff7c0dc6de55e7f8565ebde6de9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 23:51:35 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Read the answers that landed rather than the questions they replaced Every entry of the plan's question issue was answered on 2026-08-24 and eight decision records landed for the eight answers. Two documents went on describing entries of it as open, and one of them refused a hand-over the recorded answer permits. docs/promotion.md told a reader that who may place a contributor's work under another board's terms carries no answer, so a hand-over of somebody else's work still cannot be completed. Record 0020 answers exactly that, is on the default branch, and says of itself that the answer reaches this checklist and the section gains a fifth item. The item is added, naming the consent, when it is asked for and when it is not, and where it is written. The failure the repair prevents is a hand-over refused by a document rather than by a rule. The item is added with what does not stand behind it. Nothing in this repository refuses a promotion section that names no consent, because the check holds the section to the four things record 0005 names and adding a fifth is a record-format change under record 0013. Record 0020 states that residual and this document now carries it too, because an item read as enforced is worse than an item read as owed. docs/supply-chain.md rested three triage rows on the same entries. The Contributors row called who may contribute an open question, which record 0024 answers; the Packaging and Signed-Releases rows rested on whether this board publishes artefacts at all, which record 0021 answers, and the Packaging row named a permanent minus one as the correct outcome on a branch that can no longer be taken. No re-score was run, so nothing here claims a score moved and both rows say to re-read them against a scored run once a release exists. The new links are written the way docs/operator-guide.md and docs/privacy.md write theirs, relative to docs/. The two existing links in docs/promotion.md are written relative to the repository root and do not resolve from a file inside docs/. That is a defect and it is not repaired here, because it is a different topic from the one this change is about; it is written into the issue instead. This does not finish #216. One site is left: a decision record states the entry is open, and record 0000 says a landed record takes only one edit, the line naming what superseded it. What repairs a landed record carrying a claim that has stopped reproducing is a rule nobody has taken, and guessing it here would be worse than leaving the three words in place. Refs #216 Signed-off-by: Nils Lehnen <30603423+iderex@users.noreply.github.com> --- docs/promotion.md | 23 +++++++++++++++++++---- docs/supply-chain.md | 27 +++++++++++++++++---------- 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/promotion.md b/docs/promotion.md index 019b844..2473cb0 100644 --- a/docs/promotion.md +++ b/docs/promotion.md @@ -37,10 +37,25 @@ board is the GNU General Public License version 3, so that is what the code carries out and the receiving side inherits terms rather than finding none. This repository declares the same licence to the checks that read one, and [docs/decisions/0018-the-licence-of-this-board.md](docs/decisions/0018-the-licence-of-this-board.md) -is the answer both of them come from. Entry three of issue #46 asks who may -place a contributor's work under another board's terms and carries no answer, -so a hand-over of somebody else's work still cannot be completed, and writing -anything else into this line would be inventing permission nobody gave. +is the answer both of them come from. + +The contributor's consent, where the receiving board's terms differ from that +licence. +[docs/decisions/0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.md](decisions/0020-consent-to-promote-under-other-terms.md) +decides that a result leaves under different terms only with the contributor's +explicit consent, given at promotion time rather than agreed in advance, and +written as a `Consent:` line in the promotion section naming who consented and +the terms they consented to. A hand-over resting on a conversation is one +nobody can check afterwards, and the moment it gets checked is the worst one +there is. Where the receiving board carries the same licence there is nothing +to consent to and this item is not asked for. + +Nothing in this repository refuses a promotion section that names no consent. +The check that reads the section holds it to the four things record `0005` +names, and adding a fifth is a change to the record format that goes through +[docs/decisions/0013-how-the-record-format-changes.md](decisions/0013-how-the-record-format-changes.md). +Record `0020` says as much of itself, and what stands behind this item until +that lands is whoever does the hand-over and whoever reads the change. What would have to change for this to be production code, written by whoever did the work. They know and nobody else does. An experiment is allowed to cut diff --git a/docs/supply-chain.md b/docs/supply-chain.md index 52040fd..6014927 100644 --- a/docs/supply-chain.md +++ b/docs/supply-chain.md @@ -120,10 +120,12 @@ person follows here and no machine enforces it. `project has 0 contributing companies or organizations -- score normalized to 0` Accepted, and outside this repository's control. The check counts the -organisations that the accounts contributing here belong to. Nothing a change in -this tree can do moves it, and whether this board takes contributions from -outside at all is an open question on issue #46 rather than something to score -against. +organisations that the accounts contributing here belong to, which the line +above says is none. Nothing a change in this tree can do moves it, and who may +contribute here is answered rather than open: +`docs/decisions/0024-who-may-run-an-experiment-here.md` decides that this board +takes experiments from anybody. An open door and a count of organisations are +different things, and only the second is scored. ### Dangerous-Workflow, 10 @@ -204,10 +206,13 @@ rather than a finding. It will start reporting on its own. `packaging workflow not detected` -Did not apply, and whether it ever should is an open question. Entry four on -issue #46 asks whether this board publishes downloadable artefacts at all. If the -answer is no, this check stays at `-1` permanently and that is the correct -outcome rather than a gap. +Did not apply, and the question this row rested on is answered. +`docs/decisions/0021-what-this-board-publishes.md` decides that this board +publishes downloadable artefacts and that they are signed, so the outcome this +row used to name as correct - a permanent `-1` because nothing is ever +published - is not available. What the check looks for is a packaging workflow, +which a workflow publishing a release is not necessarily, so re-read this row +against a scored run once a release exists rather than predicting it here. ### Pinned-Dependencies, 10 @@ -270,8 +275,10 @@ the deduction stays. `no releases found` Did not apply, and it cannot pass until there are releases. Accepted now, reopened -by the release milestone. Whether artefacts are published and whether they are -signed are both entry four on issue #46. +by the release milestone. Both halves are decided rather than open: +`docs/decisions/0021-what-this-board-publishes.md` says this board publishes +downloadable artefacts and that they are signed, so what this row waits on is a +release rather than an answer. ### Token-Permissions, 10