Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian
On 19/01/14 03:25, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> In general, I've been quite unhappy with the excessive invocation of
>> the TC recently, with developers seeming to view this as a first,
>> rather than absolute last, resort.
> [...]
>
> Constitutionally, a GR is the last resort in that it can overrule every
> other decision. A GR can settle a decision finally but does *not*
> create consensus. So if you honestly think that more time should be
> allowed for a consensus to arise, perhaps you should propose a GR that
> says this issue is not ripe for the TC to decide on and sets some
> minimum delay before it can be brought to the TC again.
It is not about the TC at all (unless they volunteer to do the work to
implement any decision they make)
Ultimately, whatever decision making process is used (GR, TC, etc) there
needs to be some suggestion about who will actually do what and who
presumably won't do anything or what will stop working
E.g. if we choose systemd, who will implement all the things that need
to be changed outside the Gnome related packages? What will immediately
fail if not adapted to systemd?
If we choose Upstart, it is not quite ready to do everything systemd
would do and we have to trust the developers to follow through on their
commitments to fill those gaps. I personally believe their intentions
are good but promises are never the same as releases. If we decide to
give them our trust and for any reason they can't deliver on time, what
would we fall back on, is it enough to say we would just keep sysvinit
for another 2 years, or would we defer the release and wait for them?
Every option - and every fall back option - needs to be explained and
accompanied by some details about who will do what if that option is
chosen, if it hits a snag, etc. Only then do we have a list of choices
for a GR
Reply to: