Re: On init in Debian

[Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au>]

Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net> writes:

> On 03/16/2012 06:50 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net> writes:
> > > Hypothetically, if this went away,
> > > would it have a substantial impact on the decision?
> > Which decision in particular, and by who?
>
> Anthropologically speaking, folkmoot is […] but I'd say the "decision"
> is more a matter of who volunteers to do what.
>
> Does that sound about right?

I don't know what you're asking, which is why I asked you for
clarification of what you mean.

You asked “if this [requirement for the Canonical contributor agreement
before accepting contributions in ‘upstart’] went away, would it have a
substantial impact on the decision?” and I don't know what “the
decision” you're referring to is.

There are several being discussed, to be decided by different parties,
as summarized by Lars Wirzenius. Which one are you asking about?

> > If the Canonical contributor agreement were no longer required for
> > contributions to a work, then depending on that work for core Debian
> > features would be significantly less controversial, IMO. Does that
> > answer your question?
>
> Yes, thanks. So, the contributor agreement is a factor, but not the only
> factor (or even the primary factor).

That's not a good conclusion from what I'm saying. I don't know enough
about the issues that might be relevant for ‘upstart’ in Debian to be
exhaustive; there may be many more, there many be a few more, or there
may be only one.

I'm only pointing out that the contributor agreement requirement imposed
by Canonical is, as you asked, IMO a significant part of the
controversy.

-- 
 \       “It's easy to play any musical instrument: all you have to do |
  `\       is touch the right key at the right time and the instrument |
_o__)                        will play itself.” —Johann Sebastian Bach |
Ben Finney