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

Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie

Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:

> I agree with Ian on this.  At this point, it should be clear to everyone
> that, given the stated preferences of each member of the TC, the default
> init system for jessie will be systemd.  But I do not think this is the
> most important aspect of the problem that needs to be decided.  The
> question of how, or if, multiple init systems will coexist in the Debian
> archive for jessie is what needs to be decided in order to unblock
> maintainers and give them clarity for their own packages.

Given that you feel like it's clear what the default init system will be,
and given that the previous rounds of partial voting show that the choice
of dependency models will have no effect on that outcome, I don't see any
point in delaying this part of the decision.  You feel like this is all
but decided; fine, let's decide it, so that we have a decision on record,
and then continue the discussion.

Or, put another way, why *don't* you want to vote on this right now?  That
it's not the most important question is not a reason to delay voting on
it; if anything, it's a reason to vote on it first, so that we can dispose
of the questions with clear answers while we're working on language for
the more complex options.

We held the ballot to entangle it with other questions on the assumption
that this entangling may change the result for the primary question.  It
turns out that this is not the case, so there was no need for that
entangling.  I would really like to establish things that you think are
already apparent so that we have some forward progress and so that we
don't have to hold open sockets for things that we think are *probably*
decided but that we've not yet actually decided.

If you feel like deciding this will mean losing some momentum on a
question that you consider more important, I personally commit to
continuing the discussions on that process and working on a ballot and
arriving at a decision as quickly as possible.  I don't think any of us
intend to abandon this discussion once the init system default on Linux is

> I will note for the record here that a number of DDs have at this point
> given the TC an ultimatum in private, stating that they will start a GR
> if the TC does not call for votes within a specified time limit.  I
> suspect that this ultimatum didn't have much effect on Bdale's decision
> to call for a vote (since he was already predisposed to having the
> up/down vote in question).  Likewise, such an ultimatum doesn't change
> my view about what ballot should be voted and when.  And every DD has a
> constitutional right to start a GR on this question, at any point.  But
> it's highly inappropriate to attempt to pressure the TC into making a
> quick decision using the *threat* of a GR.  TC decisions take time
> precisely because they deal with nuanced issues that don't get handled
> any other way.  Rushing to a vote only delays efforts to reach a
> consensus in the project, and is counter to the long-term health of
> Debian.

I think a group of DDs are telling us that we're not doing our job in a
timely fashion.  While one may or may not agree with that, I think it's
intended as constructive feedback, and personally I welcome the
accountability to the rest of the project here.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: