Bug#727708: TC endorsement, political aspects

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

Enrico Zini writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 03:26:31PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > The main objections to some of the upstreams' behaviours are,
> > basically, "they don't care what anyone else thinks, and are trying to
> > impose their will by various means".  If that's the case, further
> > imprecations aren't likely to make any difference.
> 
> What I had in mind was the concern that a technical choice from Debian
> may be seen as a political endorsement, too, which may make the choice
> much more loaded.

Yes.

> I would imagine that among these four options, the middle two would be
> far less polarising:
>  - we will use systemd, and way to go Lennart!
>  - we will use systemd, although we are concerned about Lennart
>  - we will use upstart, although we are concerned about Canonical
>  - we will use upstart, and way to go Canonical!

I think this is a good idea.  I have written a draft paragraph about
the Canonical upstart CLA, in my most recent message to Keith.

At the risk of feeding the horrible energy beast I think I need to try
to propose some wording about these troublesome aspects of systemd.
Here's a suggested text to accompany versions of the resolution which
specify systemd as default.

  N.  We are very concerned about the systemd upstream's history of
      claiming control of wide areas of functionality.  We are also
      worried by the vigorous adoption campaign one of whose key
      strategies appears to be making systemd mandatory for various
      other software, even where the benefits of such tight coupling
      are minimal or alternative approaches such as operation with
      reduced functionality would be entirely feasible.

      In this context the systemd project's apparent lack of
      prioritisation of the legitimate divergence of wishes and goals
      on the part of its downstreams is especially worrying.

      Our selection of systemd as default is made despite these
      worries.  We reiterate Debian's commitment to diversity of
      approaches and to the freedom of our downstreams and users to
      make their own choices.

The last sentence can only make sense in the context of a resolution
supporting multiple init systems for the foreseeable future.

> [feel free to quote me in public anyway you see fit; I'm replying
> privately because I'm concerned about giving even more food to this
> topic, which I perceive as a vast and long lasting energy drain for
> Debian]

Quite (as I said to Enrico).

Ian.