[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 12:35:15PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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.

Ian, I'm extremely disaspointed in this childish behavior of trying to
insert a malicious trap-door to a decision.

I'm *EXTREMELY* disaspointed in this.

I'm CC'ing DAM.

This is, at minimum:

  1) A abuse of power (inserting a backdoor in a decision)
  2) Dishonest (using an unrelated GR to turn over the default init
     decision made through a backdoor you put in)
  3) Goddamn slimy (for supporting this abuse)

I expected better of you.

DAM, I don't even know what I can suggest you do. This is a hugely
hurtful thing for Ian to do.

It sucks, because I did look up to you, Ian. I did respect your work,
and it literally pains me to find these words. As much as I disagreed, I
respected the fact you always had technical grounds.

Clearly such blatent politicking tarnishes that respect, and I'd imagine
this is becoming a popular point of view.


 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>  |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `-     http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: