On Jo, 14 aug 14, 09:48:45, Joel Rees wrote: > > A four-four draw in the technical committees should have been a call > to open the discussion to a wider user base, not a call for one member > of the committee to make an arbitrary decision. Things are not > functioning correctly "up" there, even if we ignore the Social > Contract. This seems to come up from time to time so I have to say: The vote against sysvinit was 7:1 Sysvinit didn't even beat Further Discussion (4:4), which in Debian's voting system means "we would rather restart the discussion than continue with sysvinit". The 4:4 draw you are referring to, the one decided by the Chairman's casting vote was for the systemd vs. upstart part of the vote. https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00402.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00405.html Add to this that the Technical Committee specifically designed the resolution to be overridable by a General Resolution with a simple majority (vs. the two thirds required by the constitution to override the Technical Committee). Yet, - *nobody* proposed a resolution to change systemd with upstart or stick with sysvinit - the proposed resolution to decide between loose coupling vs. tight coupling didn't even gather enough sponsors. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/msg00000.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2014/03/msg00151.html Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature