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

Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:30:25PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Finally, I have hard time seeing under which powers could L be decided 
> by the tech-ctte: the policy team hasn't worked on that (§6.1.1), there 
> is no juridiction overlap that I could see (nor a disagreement about the 
> matter, §6.1.2), and it's not formulated as an overrule (§6.1.4) or an 
> advice (§6.1.5). The only relevant bit would be §6.1.3 as Paul 
> specifically asked for in <20131025184344.GB4599@helios.pault.ag>:

So Didier recently forwarded this to the secretary, saying:
> I've mailed Message-ID <1997214.E2693zAoXp@gyllingar> to the init system
> bug, but forgot to CC you for a more binding advice on the
> constitutionality of L. I'm therefore hereby writing to you explicitely;
> my original message is attached.
> Don't hesitate to prove me wrong publically, I'm only interested in
> having a constitutionally sane decision out, rather sooner than later.

I have also asked them under which power they decide things.  This
makes things so much clearer for everybody.

The text from the last vote said:
> == dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) ==
>   Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
>   a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
>   tolerable.
>   Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
>   to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.

I'm guessing that under you're asking for the interpretation of
this in 6.1.1:
| In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or
| documentation makes decisions initially

And think that because the policy maintainers didn't try to make
any decision yet, the ctte can't make that decisions?

I can certainly understand that that is one way of looking at it.

I'm not yet sure about this and would like to receive some input.


Reply to: