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

Bug#727708: Both T and L are wrong, plea for something simpler

Le vendredi, 7 février 2014, 11.04:12 Russ Allbery a écrit :
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud" <odyx@debian.org> writes:
> > 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?
> I appreciate what you're saying here (although I think 6.1.1 overrides
> that), but as one of the delegated Policy Editors, I would
> immediately punt such a question arising in the Policy context to the
> TC under 6.1.1 and 6.1.3. There is absolutely no way the normal
> Policy maintenance process could deal with this debate.
> If it makes you feel more comfortable with this process, please assume
> that's happened.

It does, thank you for the clarification.

As I was carrying the "constitutional nitpicker" hat [0], let me finish: 
I think any confusion would have been avoided if the issue had been 
referred explicitely and separately to the tech-ctte by the Policy 
editors. The fact that it's needed to have that done after the fact 
shows that the issue got taken by the Technical Committee, while it 
hadn't been asked to, failing the mandatory earlier attempts at reaching 
consensus [1].

I keep thinking that bundling the default init decision with ruling on 
what software dependencies are allowed in Debian packs two quite 
different issues, allows (or "features", one could say) tactical voting 
and has, in effect, delayed the core decision by several weeks now.


[0] Who wants it now?
[1] Furthermore, I'd be quite surprised if any non-T variant would stand
    a GR, but that's mostly speculation at this point.

Reply to: