Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
"Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine"
"this is becoming a popular point of view."
Says the systemd camp, which uses politics in every fight it wages
(and it usually wins). Using the tech-ctte to change the OS in a
fundamental way itself is an abuse of power, in an improper venue
created to decide disagreements among package maintainers, not
to go around everyone's backs and make sweeping changes to the
core of debian linux. I think Ian even pointed out that the
technical committe was the improper venue.
Also I read all the emails, everyone said that a GR with more than
50 percent vote should be able to override said decision.
Then systemd won 4 votes to 4, and now the systemd camp opposes
anyone holding a general resolution and is trying to stall and
not allow such a thing to be called.
Pulling the ladder up after you've achived your improper victory
(through politics). Note from whom the systemd camp derives their
salarys and income.
But yea, anyone who stands up against systemd is a troll, or dissapointing.
Four people get to decide what operating system debian is.
Four. And we have to accept that for some reason.
--- firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
From: Paul Tagliamonte <email@example.com>
To: Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Subject: Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:49:22 -0500
On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 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.
> The TC decision of the 11th of February said:
> Should the project pass a General Resolution before the release of
> "jessie" asserting a "position statement about issues of the day" on
> init systems, that position replaces the outcome of this vote and is
> adopted by the Technical Committee as its own decision.
> This a GR proposal is a "position statement about issues of the day"
> (as it says in the "Notes and rubric".) It's on the subject of init
> systems. Therefore it is covered by this wording.
> As a consequence, the GR replaces the outcome of the TC vote. The GR
> text explicitly adopts the existing TC decision on the default, and
> adds to it.
Ian, I'm extremely disaspointed in this childish behavior of trying to
insert a malicious trap-door to a decision.
I'm *EXTREMELY* disaspointed in this.
I'm CC'ing DAM.
This is, at minimum:
1) A abuse of power (inserting a backdoor in a decision)
2) Dishonest (using an unrelated GR to turn over the default init
decision made through a backdoor you put in)
3) Goddamn slimy (for supporting this abuse)
I expected better of you.
DAM, I don't even know what I can suggest you do. This is a hugely
hurtful thing for Ian to do.
It sucks, because I did look up to you, Ian. I did respect your work,
and it literally pains me to find these words. As much as I disagreed, I
respected the fact you always had technical grounds.
Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine
this is becoming a popular point of view.
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
The Free Email with so much more!
=====> http://www.MuchoMail.com <=====