Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
]] Russ Allbery
(Dropped DAM and personal Ccs)
> Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
> I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have
> any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to
> individual developers how to do their work and undermines the flexibility
> of Debian contributors in ways that I think are unnecessary and a little
> condescending, and requires work be done without identifying anyone who is
> going to do the work, which is why I voted against it. But it's not some
> sort of end-run around the previous decision.
The previous decision does say that it is replaced completely by the
text of such a position statement and I do note that the proposed GR
does, very carefully, not refer to systemd as the default. It makes for
a clumsier construction, which when combined with the level of legal-ish
arguments being made here, makes me suspicious.
It feels like we're way past rough consensus and working code and
running at full speed into a courtroom.
> Third, even if it were, as Andreas points out, we put that clause in there
> intentionally. If the project wants to change the decision about the
> default init system, it can do so with a 1:1 majority.
I don't think anybody has a problem with the non-cornercase
interpretations of the GR.
> I think the way this GR is phrased is odd, and I agree with Bdale that I
> see no reason why it couldn't just be a straight statement on issues of
> the day without being attached to a TC decision. Currently, it's attached
> to a decision about the default init system while not actually saying
> anything about the default init system, which I think is strange. I
> concur with Kurt that while procedurally this may be allowed, I don't
> think it's a particularly good idea.
I think it's a terrible idea. Ian writes that he specificially made it
as broad as he did in order to create this situation so that anything
could be included.
> Also, separately, please don't attack Ian for things that Matthew
> proposed, or for clauses in previous decision that Bdale drafted in
> conjunction with the project secretary. This is not a situation of Ian's
> creation.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00020.html, by Ian:
That GR override clause was written by me. I specifically drew it
widely precisely so that, amongst other things, a GR could answer
questions that the TC has failed to answer.
I don't think pointing at Ian for the clause is particularly unfair.
Ian's also seconded the proposed GR, which generally means you agree
with whatever you're seconding.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are
Reply to: