Bug#727708: Init system resolution open questions

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

I think what we need to decide at the meeting later today is:

 * Are we ready to make a decision ?

 * If anyone is not, what other information/research/etc. is required
   and how long will that take ?

 * If we are ready, what resolution texts should we be voting on ?

 * If we are ready, can we set a timetable for the vote itself to make
   sure that we hold the voting period during a time when everyone is
   going to be available ?  (Constitutionally we can't extend the
   voting period, and it is IMO important that as many TC members as
   possible cast votes.)

I'm hoping that the answer to the first question is "yes".  I'm happy
to draft all the versions for everyone, although obviously every TC
member is entitled to propose a resolution of their own.

There are a number of questions on which TC members have so far
expressed diverging views, or at least the answers aren't clear:

Q1 (Obviously) What should be the default in jessie ?

Q2 Should we declare an intent to support multiple systems for the
   foreseeable future ?

Q3 Should we issue guidance on what kind of changes ought to be
   accepted by maintainers ?  In particular, should we explicitly lay
   out certain objections as _not_ good reasons for a maintainer to
   accept an init system patch and what should be on that list of
   non-objections ?

Q4 Do we want to retain some comment along the lines of my current
   draft's s11 "Replacement of existing functionality".

The combinatorial matrix of all these options, even after we drop any
that don't have significant support, is going to be too unweildy.  We
mustn't vote on each question independently because people's views
might intertwine the issues.

My initial suggestion would be:

Firstly, Q4 could be separated out as genuinely independent.  If there is
support for such a statement, it can come as a separate resolution.

Regarding Q1-3 and other objections that arise from my drafts:
constitutionally we put anything on the ballot that any TC member
proposes.  I suggest that TC members should request for combinations
to be on the ballot if either (a) that combination is anyone's
preferred outcome or (b) it makes a plausible compromise between some
other pair of proposed options.

Does that make sense ?

Ian.

PS: After I've found out what versions people care about, I'm tempted
to turn my draft into something that can be automatically converted
into various versions...