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

Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

]] Russ Allbery

(Dropped DAM and personal Ccs)

> Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so
> I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here.  It wouldn't have
> any effect on the choice of default.  It dictates in a top-down manner to
> individual developers how to do their work and undermines the flexibility
> of Debian contributors in ways that I think are unnecessary and a little
> condescending, and requires work be done without identifying anyone who is
> going to do the work, which is why I voted against it.  But it's not some
> sort of end-run around the previous decision.

The previous decision does say that it is replaced completely by the
text of such a position statement and I do note that the proposed GR
does, very carefully, not refer to systemd as the default.  It makes for
a clumsier construction, which when combined with the level of legal-ish
arguments being made here, makes me suspicious.

It feels like we're way past rough consensus and working code and
running at full speed into a courtroom.

> Third, even if it were, as Andreas points out, we put that clause in there
> intentionally.  If the project wants to change the decision about the
> default init system, it can do so with a 1:1 majority.

I don't think anybody has a problem with the non-cornercase
interpretations of the GR.

> I think the way this GR is phrased is odd, and I agree with Bdale that I
> see no reason why it couldn't just be a straight statement on issues of
> the day without being attached to a TC decision.  Currently, it's attached
> to a decision about the default init system while not actually saying
> anything about the default init system, which I think is strange.  I
> concur with Kurt that while procedurally this may be allowed, I don't
> think it's a particularly good idea.

I think it's a terrible idea.  Ian writes that he specificially made it
as broad as he did in order to create this situation so that anything
could be included.

> Also, separately, please don't attack Ian for things that Matthew
> proposed, or for clauses in previous decision that Bdale drafted in
> conjunction with the project secretary.  This is not a situation of Ian's
> creation.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00020.html, by Ian:

  That GR override clause was written by me.  I specifically drew it
  widely precisely so that, amongst other things, a GR could answer
  questions that the TC has failed to answer.

I don't think pointing at Ian for the clause is particularly unfair.
Ian's also seconded the proposed GR, which generally means you agree
with whatever you're seconding.

Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Reply to: