Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2014 at 02:50:00PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That doesn't contradict the GR. If the GR passes we have two
> > resolutions:
> > 11th Feb as modified by GR: sysvinit as default, loose coupling
> > 28th Feb "we choose not to pass a resolution at the current time
> > [ie on the 28th of February] about coupling"
> > These are not contradictory. In particular, the 28th of February
> > resolution should not be read as vacating the 11th of February
> > resolution's GR rider, which is what you are suggesting.
> I'm not disagreeing that you're allowed to do it, I'm disagreeing
> that it's a good idea to do it.
Does that mean that you are now tending towards the view that
Matthew's proposal requires only a simple 1:1 majority ?