[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:43PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > But it also says:
> > 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy
> > 
> >   For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical
> >   policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows:
> Yes.  That is part of the text which is added to the TC decision of
> the 11th of February, by virtue of the GR override clause in that
> decision.  As the rubric says, s1 and s2 of the GR text are added to
> that TC decision text.  s1 of the GR text is not freestanding.
> Putting the "notes and rubric" section first might make this clearer
> for you to see, but it would make the whole GR text much less clear to
> read because it would start with several paragraphs of procedural
> palaver.

I understand your point.  But it feels to me like an abuse of the
CTs decision because it's on a related but different subject.  I
would prefer that it would just make a position statement that
doesn't have an effect on the CTs decision.


Reply to: