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
> 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.