Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler (was: Re: Call for votes on init system resolution)
On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:43:33PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Hi Kurt,
> Le jeudi, 6 février 2014, 21.19:36 Kurt Roeckx a écrit :
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 08:38:25PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > 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?
> Yes. I stand to this interpretation, see below.
> > I'm currently of the opinion that gnome made an initial decisions
> > and as reaction to that they are setting policy and that this will
> > be allowed under 6.1.1.
> Back then, the gnome maintainers added a dependency on another package,
> which happened to be providing an /sbin/init. This was allowed by the
> Debian Policy of the time as well as by the Debian archive. The
> maintainers of the Policy maintainers haven't tried to rule on this at
> all since then. How is this matter now magically taken off the Policy
> maintainers' hands (while it _is_ a matter of Policy) and become a
> matter for the technical committee?
Do you agree that the ctte can decide policy? Under what
I think it all boils down to what "relevant software or
> I feel compelled to write that I'm quite concerned to see technical
> committee members propose to rule on things they see fit, just because
> it's sufficiently important to their eyes. As I detailed in
> <1756169.he50hsLr7Y@gyllingar>, I'm quite firmly convinced that any
> ruling restricting software dependencies fails §6.1.1 (as the powers
> invoked), §6.3.5 and §6.3.6 at this point in time.
About detailed design work: You could argue that they proposed the
alternative solutions and aren't just deciding between them. As
far as I know those proposols come from the ctte itself, in which
case it should probably go under 6.1.5 to give advice.
About 6.3.6: I think trying to resolve this via consensus failed.
Anyway, I'm still not sure.