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