[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#727708: init system discussion - the highlights (was: Bug#727708: init system gr override - formal resolution proposal)



Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> writes:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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        | the whole of this decision is to be taken as withdrawn by the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        | TC (i.e. as if the TC had explicitly withdrawn it by a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
  Debian (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708)

* 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
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=733452#1501)

* 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"
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#2443).

* 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
  system". (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#2638)

* The ctte chair asks to "try *very* hard to keep [disrespectful
  sentences] out of the TC discussion".
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#2468)

* 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
  development".
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#2810)
  
* 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.
  (XXX)

* Some ctte members offer to implement specific functions in their
  preferred init system in an attempt to sway others to their position.
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#4031)
  
* 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.
  (xxx)
  
* 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.
  (XXX)
  
* 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.
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#4191)

* 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
  day. (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#4201)

* 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.
  (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#4264)


(F'up2 debian-curiosa)


Best,
Nikolaus

-- 
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.«


Reply to: