Re: Policy and procedures issue: init package hijacked via hostile NMU (declined by maintainers)
On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 at 22:25:48 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Procedurally? I guess it was
> OKish, but I guess that's a consequence we get when people involved
> the ctte to muddle the social and procedural fabric of the project…
I am not aware of any requests for decisions, requests to overrule
developers or requests for advice regarding this issue. If anyone
wants the technical committee to decide, overrule or advise, please
open a bug in the tech-ctte pseudo-package.
The technical committee will not generally act unless asked to do so.
(It could be a member of the technical committee that asks, as in #911225,
in which I asked the committee for advice.) The absence of a technical
committee veto should not be treated as either in favour or against.
The technical committee is part of the procedural fabric of the project:
it's in the project's constitution. If you think it should not be, the
route to remove it would be a general resolution to change the Debian
constitution, which I think requires a supermajority (and a plan for how
else to resolve disagreements between developers).
> We are also talking about a change that affects only people who might
> want to use runit as their init system.
This isn't *entirely* true, but the situation in which it would affect
people who haven't specifically chosen to use runit-init seems rather
unlikely (both systemd-sysv and sysvinit-core would have to suffer from