Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:49:22PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 12:35:15PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: >> > 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. > [...] >> 2) Dishonest (using an unrelated GR to turn over the default init >> decision made through a backdoor you put in) > > Huh? Ian explicitly says, as does the text itself, that this proposed > GR *adopts* the TC decision on the default init system. It doesn't > overturn it. The part I don't understand is why reference is made to any TC decision at all. Unless the objectives include overturning the decision on the default Linux init system for jessie, I see no reason to invoke the GR clause in that resolution at all. Why isn't this just a standalone GR asserting a "position statement about issues of the day" on the coupling question? Bdale
Attachment:
pgpkd0UxrQj9l.pgp
Description: PGP signature