Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Nikolaus Rath writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> I believe the point of contention is that Ian seems to imply that due to
> the way that the wrote the GR clause, *any* GR related to init would
> automatically nullify the TC's decision about the default init system --
> even if the GR doesn't say anything about the default init
> system.

I think that is the case.  I think this is a bug in the wording of the
GR rider clause.  The workaround is for such a GR to explicitly adopt
the TC decision text.  Matthew's proposal does that.

> Consequently, any GR about init-related issues would now need to
> explicity state that it upholds the CTTE's decision for the default init
> system. Lacking that, passing of the GR would, as a *side-effect*
> nullify the CT decision about the default init. I would be surprised if
> this is what the majority ofthe CTTE intended.

I think everyone on the TC agrees that this is undesirable.

Unfortunately we had some difficulty getting a GR rider text which the
Secretary accepted would be appropriately operative, and this bug was
introduced during that drafting work.  My initial proposed wording
didn't have this bug, but the Secretary's interpretation was that a GR
which tried to exercise it would still need 2:1.

Sorry for my part in causing this additional procedural annoyance.

Ian.