Bug#727708: init system discussion - the highlights (was: Bug#727708: init system gr override - formal resolution proposal)
Bdale Garbee <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Ian Jackson <email@example.com> writes:
>> I hereby propose the following resolution:
>> 1. The Technical Committee does not wish any resolutions it passes
>> about the init system question(s) to stand in the face of any
>> contrary view expressed by a majority of the Developers in a
>> General Resolution.
>> 2. Accordingly, all TC decisions (past and future) related to init
>> systems, which do not specify otherwise, should be read as
>> including the following rider:
>> | This decision is automatically vacated by any contrary
>> | General Resolution which passes by a simple majority.
>> | In that case the General Resolution takes effect and
>> | the whole of this decision is to be taken as withdrawn by the
>> | TC (i.e. as if the TC had explicitly withdrawn it by a
>> | subsequent TC resolution).
>> Please send comments, or formal amendment proposals, by 2014-01-28
>> 17:00 UTC. I will call a vote on some version(s) then.
> I would strongly prefer you time-bound such a resolution. Burdening all
> *future* technical committees with an exception to the constitution they
> must remember and handle seems unkind.
Wow, this is amazing.
I'm trying to keep track of all the interesting stuff that has happened
here so far to preserve it for the future. Is there anything noteworthy
that I missed? So far I have (not strictly chronological):
* The Debian CTTE is asked to decide about the default init system for
* Off the 8 CTTE members, 2 are starting to dive down into a technical
comparison, writing about 98% of all messages sent by ctte members on
this topic (FIXME: number is just a guess, need to do proper counting)
* One ctte member is appaled by the reaction of the systemd developers
and maintainers to his suggestion regarding a daemon startup
notification method. He then creates and refers a second issue to the
ctte: the design of a daemon readiness protocol
* A ctte member states that the "outright attacks [..] assuming not only
bad faith but malicious motives among other people in the free
software community" that he sees in the messages of another ctte
member are "deeply disturbing"
* A ctte member devotes a lengthy email to describing how "the GNOME
Team has a pattern of failing to engage constructively with the rest
of the project around crucial integration issues", and that therefore
the ctte should not let its decision be influenced by "assertions that
GNOME upstream is tethering itself to a specific init
* The ctte chair asks to "try *very* hard to keep [disrespectful
sentences] out of the TC discussion".
* The ctte members one by one announce their preferences, resulting in a
theoretical (no formal vote was called) 4:4 draw between upstart and
systemd. All of 3 Ubuntu (or former Ubuntu) developers in the ctte
declare their support for upstart.
* A debian developer finds a "fairly challeging conflict of interest"
after a ctte member and Canoncial-employed maintainer of upstart
states that decision for systemd "would leave Canonical confronting
some hard questions about whether to continue investing in upstart
* An attempt to draft a resolution gets stuck.
* A GR is proposed on debian-vote. The option to defer the decision to
the ctte seems to get the most vocal support.
* Some ctte members offer to implement specific functions in their
preferred init system in an attempt to sway others to their position.
* The ctte chair calls for vote on the default init system in a ~10 line
message without prior discussion of the resolution. The call for votes
is not send to the ctte bug, but the ctte mailing list.
* A ctte member is offended by calling for votes on this resolution
without discussing it first, and asks the other members to vote with
"further discussion" because the resolution did not specify that it
could be overturned by a GR with simple majority.
* A ctte resolution to declare that all future ctte decisions relating
to the init system will be automatically overruled by GRs with simple
majority is proposed. The author states he will call for votes after a
discussion period of one day.
* A ctte resolution asserting that sysv init support is mandatory and
that no package may depend on a specific init system is proposed. The
author states he will call for votes after a discussion period of one
* A fourth ctte resolution draft is posted, this time asking for the
default init system while explicitly specfying that a GR will override
the choice with simple majority.
Encrypted emails preferred.
PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6 02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«