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

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 12:04:20AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I am not sure whether Colin is aware that it currently depends on him 
> whether or not DT can win - and whether that might make him consider 
> changing his vote.
> If Ian convinces Colin to change his vote to move DT from 5. to 7. on 
> his ballot, then DT cannot pass FD and is dead.

I have been intentionally trying not to do the Condorcet analysis,
because I consider tactical voting of that kind to be borderline
dishonest.  As it is, I'm far from a voting systems expert and I have to
go to considerable effort to work this sort of thing out, making me
safer against any impulses I might develop to manipulate things.  So I
would actually appreciate it if people did not try to make me aware of
these things.  (I will now try to burn the brain cells involved in
writing this paragraph. :-) )

When deciding my vote, I was trying to bear in mind that decision
paralysis has its own costs to the project: further discussion is not
automatically the safe status quo that it might be in other situations.
Thus, I mainly ranked those options below FD which I considered not to
make enough useful progress, so that we would be very likely to simply
end up back here in a short period of time.  For me, I consider DT (and
for that matter UT) to be a significantly less than ideal compromise;
among other things I don't think it provides enough safeguards against
various kinds of fracturing of the distribution.  But it also doesn't
exclude (what I think of as) better outcomes, and it gets us past this
divisive and exhausting debate and lets us move to a default init which
is better than we have now even if it isn't my preferred one.  So,
taking this into consideration, I placed it barely above FD, and I think
I'd do the same in future votes on similar sets of options.

Colin Watson                                       [cjwatson@debian.org]

Reply to: