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

Bug#727708: Init system Call for Votes, Ian's drafts



On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 07:32:48PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on my own formal proposal.

> Options on the ballot:
> 
>   DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 
>   UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 
>   OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 
>   VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
> 
>   GR   project should decide via GR
> 
>   FD   further discussion

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 07:48:40PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on the following resolution:

>    The init system decision is limited to selecting a default
>    initsystem for jessie.  We expect that Debian will continue to
>    support multiple init systems for the foreseeable future; we
>    continue to welcome contributions of support for all init systems.

>    Therefore, for jessie and later releases, we exercise our power to
>    set technical policy (Constitution 6.1.1):

>    Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
>    a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
>    tolerable.

>    Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
>    to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.

On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 07:55:48PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on the following resolution
> 
>    If the project passes (before the release of jessie) by a General
>    Resolution, a "position statement about issues of the day", on the
>    subject of init systems, the views expressed in that position
>    statement entirely replace the substance of any TC resolution (past
>    or future) on the same topic; the TC hereby adopts any such
>    position statement as its own decision.
> 
>    Such a position statement could, for example, use these words:
> 
>       The Project requests (as a position statement under s4.1.5 of the
>       Constitution) that the TC reconsider, and requests that the TC
>       would instead decide as follows:

In the interest of avoiding any procedural accidents given that there's been
a formal CFV on each of these resolutions:  I vote 'FD' on each, leaving all
other options unranked (i.e., below 'FD').

As I've already said, I share Ian's concern that Bdale's call for votes was
disrespectful, depriving his fellow committee members of the right to
participate in the drafting process, which is just as much an exploit of the
voting system as tactical voting is.  But this barrage of CFVs only
compounds the problem.

I do support the idea of fixing the constitution to require a minimum
discussion period on ballots for TC resolutions.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: