Re: Proposal: s have a GR about the init system
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 10:45:55 Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 07:33:01PM -0400, Scott Kitterman a écrit :
> > I think that is all true and correct, but I certainly didn't get that from
> > the original message. It certainly read to me like an attempt to undermine
> > the legitimacy of any future TB decision in favor of upstart. ICBW, of
> > course.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> while the original message may be borderline, the conflict of interest is
> here.
>
> Conflict of interest is not a judgement on a person. It is a judgement
> about a situation, and a recommendation on how systematically react,
> without making exceptions.
>
> For the choice of an init system, the technical comittee is a typical
> example where conflict of interest disqualifies a large number of its
> members (3 current or former employees of Canonical). This has been also
> observed in comittees making decisions on the approval of pharmaceutical
> drugs on the market, for instance, and it is a hard problem to solve.
>
> Luckily, the quorum of the technical comittee is 2 and the president has a
> casting vote, so it is possible to take a decision with the remaining
> members only. I hope that the conflict of interest will be taken seriously
> if there is a vote.
>
> But I also think that it is premature to make a decision without seeing the
> final implementations working.
It's one thing to say there's a potential bias that people should be aware of
(as Russ did). It's quite another to say that a tech-ctte vote in which they
participate is illegitimate is another. This only comes up because we know
who they are employed by and what their interest is. Many people in Debian
are employed to do different things related to Debian that aren't disclosed.
Unless there's some kind of disclosure policy for everyone involved in the any
technical discussion around Debian, I think it's silly to claim Steve and
Colin are inherently unable to separate what's good for Debian from what's
good for Canonical. This is just one more symptom of irrational anti-
Ubuntu/Canonical bias I see from some people in Debian and I encourage Steven
and Colin not to give in to it.
No matter what gets decided, some people aren't going to like it and will
complain.
Personally, I don't think there's more than one sane choice for Jessie anyway:
1. Init systems in Debian MUST provided compatibility with sysvinit scripts.
2. Packages needing an init MUST provide a sysvinit script and may provide
native init scripts also for alternative systems.
3. For the various CD #1 options, there can be different default init scripts
Something like that. Anyone who thinks their pet sysvinit alternate is going
to destroy all opposition and become the one true init for Jessie is dreaming.
Scott K
Reply to: