Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
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.