Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems
Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Proposal - preserve freedom of choice of init systems"):
> ]] Russ Allbery
> (Dropped DAM and personal Ccs)
> 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.
I concur with Matthew's reasons for not explicitly mentioning systemd
as the default. But it does clearly say that the TC decision on the
default init system stands.
> It makes for a clumsier construction, which when combined with the
> level of legal-ish arguments being made here, makes me suspicious.
It is indeed unfortunate that we are having these kind of arguments
over the precise language in these texts. I hope the comments from
Matthew on the point of the default are clear and that you are
So to recap:
* I think everyone on the TC agrees that a GR on this subject (which
includes the coupling question, not just the default question)
should be capable of being binding even with only 1:1 majority.
* Matthew's proposal is trying to answer the coupling question, with
a 1:1 majority GR, without disturbing the TC's answer to the
* Unfortunately there have been some arguments about the exact
wordings which are required to achieve this effect, and the
resulting texts are clumsy and less clear than they could be.
> 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.
As you know, I wanted the coupling question dealt with in the original
TC decision. For reasons that I don't want to go into again, that
I anticipated that attempts to get the coupling question decided by
the TC would fail. I have made no secret of my intent to support a GR
if the TC failed to answer this question.
> > 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.
I would have been happier with my previous GR override text, which was
much clearer, but the Secretary told me that a GR attempting to invoke
it would still require 2:1.