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
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.