Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
* Bdale Garbee (firstname.lastname@example.org) [140302 19:17]:
> Colin Watson <email@example.com> 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?
I mostly agree on that (and would prefer to see it that way). With the
small exception that it would be good to explicitly state that this
position statement doesn't invoke the auto-nuke clause of our