Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
Hi,
Miles Fidelman:
> >Judging by the last couple of months, the rest appears to number <6 people.
>
> A lot more than that, by my count.
>
Then the question is why almost all of these "lot more" people did not
second the GR proposal.
> Those who are most impacted are sys admins of servers, and upstream
> developers - the two communities most impacted, but that seem to have no say
> in the matter.
>
Correct. So? Debian consists of its members, i.e. people working (in
whatever capacity) on Debian itself. _Using_ a distribution does not
in itself constitute working on it. Neither does work on an Upstream package.
If you want to change that and include users and/or Upstream developers in
our constituency more directly, you're free to go ahead and draft/discuss
a GR for that. (I might even support it.)
But please don't just do this in the context of yet another attempt to
express dissatisfaction with the fact that our TC chose systemd:
if you do, I do not think you'll achieve anything except more annoyance
about the fact that we're discussing this *again*, and further regression
to a discussion climate where each&every mention of systemd automatically
raises hackles on both "sides".
Which will do any number of things, but not improve Debian.
And that's, ostensibly, what we're all here for.
In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to remain
on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should also turn out
to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, upstream developers can refuse to include
unit files or systemd-supporting tidbits (like socket activation) in their
source code.
Fact is that the vast majority of them don't. There has been no huge outcry
among Fedora users about switching to systemd, for example. So, frankly,
there doesn't seem to be a need to maufacture one here.
I'm not accusing you of doing so, mind you, but sometimes that is what
these repeated attempts to warm up Debian's systemd discussion look like.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
Reply to: