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

Re: "done with consensus decisionmaking", "war", "rearguard battles" [was: Re: REISSUED CfV: General Resolution: Init system coupling]

* Don Armstrong (don@debian.org) [141109 22:22]:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > (After repetition of the exact wording of the "We aren't convinced"
> > wording that ended up passing, and people pointing out that it *will* be
> > interpreted as TC opposition to the switch, which sure enough it did...)
> The "we are currently skeptical" wording was not present in the passed
> resolution; it was amended in 7a000[1].
> That paragraph 4 of that decision could be interpreted as deciding the
> switching issue was only clear to me in retrospect, and was certainly
> not my intention (and I don't believe it reflects the intention of
> anyone else on the CTTE.)

I fully agree to that statement (and to the rest of your mail).

> Indeed, paragraph 4 of that decision is actually a reflection of my
> personal reluctance to decide this issue in the CTTE without a very
> specific technical proposal and thorough testing.

Also, we shouldn't decide on things not ready, and so in case someone
would like the ctte to overrule here, there is just no ground
currently.  So anyone wanting a specific decision from the ctte (like
"the default shouldn't switch on dist-upgrade", "the default should
switch on dist-upgrade", or whatever else) needs to show before the
decision that this is reasonable possible, what are the downsides of
the decision and also why the ctte needs to decide (especially as the
ctte only decides as last-resort). Details see paragraph 4, for any

So we could clone paragraph 4 to an 4a, 4b etc for any of other cases
people would like us to decide here. In hindsight it might have been
better to not decide yet but to suspend that topic until we had that
plan but it's easier to say so afterwards. In theory our decision is
nothing else, but some people interpret it different which makes me
quite sad.


Reply to: