Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Kurt Roeckx (firstname.lastname@example.org) [140302 12:36]:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:26:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Kurt Roeckx (email@example.com) [140302 12:23]:
> > > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 11:01:16AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > > > > This is probably going to require a 2:1 majority requirement as
> > > > > written.
> > > >
> > > > Do you agree that the intent can be achieved by something requiring a
> > > > 1:1 majority ? If so, can you please say how.
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > I don't see why the text couldn't just say that the developers make a
> > position statement. As per 4.1.5 this could be done with a
> > 1:1-majority.
> This might have as affect that the ctte's decision about the
> default is replaced by the result of the GR, and since this GR
> doesn't want to set the default currently it might result in not
> having a decision about the default.
Thanks for the reference to the auto-nuke clause in the TC decision.
How about adding something along the lines "To avoid any doubt, this
decision does not replace the TC resolution" to avoid invoking that
clause and keep the current decision (because that is also what this
proposal wants to achive)?