Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
On Mon, Mar 03, 2014 at 12:15:37PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > Since, in my opinion, this question is all about how the project wants to
> > govern itself and how we want to handle assigning responsibility for work
>
> I don't think this is the right way to look at it. We are a volunteer
> project and we can't assign work to people.
>
> What my TC text, as adopted in Matthew's proposal, does is to answer
> the question: what happens if the work is not done ?
The text is too vague to be useful.
> It answers this question: Suppose the work is not done. Ultimately
> then we would have to drop either (a) GNOME or (b) non-systemd init
> systems, and non-Linux kernels. What choice should we make ?
There are lots of other possibilities that have been raised that you
seem to conveniently ignore.
> For me the answer is: We should preserve diversity and freedom of
> choice, at the cost of functionality. Making that statement now,
> very clearly, will make that doomsday scenario less likely.
I think your continued way of not talking to e.g. GNOME despite being
invited, while at the same time forcing work on the very people who
invite you to talk is very unfortunate.
"Doomsday scenario" is not going to happen due to the things stated in
Russ' email. GNOME is addressing this with help of others.
--
Regards,
Olav (expecting to be totally ignored again)
Reply to: