Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 01:06:46PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (kurt@roeckx.be) [140302 12:36]:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Kurt Roeckx (kurt@roeckx.be) [140302 12:23]:
> > > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > > > > > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > > > > > written.
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a
> > > > > 1:1 majority ? If so, can you please say how.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you're going to say we need to replace "the TC resolution is
> > > > > amended" with something like "we wish that instead the TC had decided
> > > > > blah", then please reconsider. That would force the GR to avoid
> > > > > saying what its own effect is, which is unnecessarily confusing.
> > > > > Also, writing that text is very cumbersome.
> > > >
> > > > The text currently says it's using the TC's power to decide
> > > > something, and so would fall under 4.1.4. I think the intent of
> > > > this GR is not to override the TC's decision about the default, so
> > > > I'm currently not sure what to suggest.
> > >
> > > I don't see why the text couldn't just say that the developers make a
> > > position statement. As per 4.1.5 this could be done with a
> > > 1:1-majority.
> >
> > This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
> > default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
> > doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
> > having a decision about the default.
>
> Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
> How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
> decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
> clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this
> proposal wants to achive)?
I think that should work.
Kurt
Reply to: