* Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> [141016 17:05]:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> I wish to propose the following general resolution, and hereby call
> for seconds. This GR resolution proposal is identical to that
> proposed by Matthew Vernon in March:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00000.html
> and the substantive text is that which was drafted for the purposes of
> the technical committee's vote (where they decided not to pass a
> resolution on the subject).
>
> IMO developments since March show that the concerns put forward then
> were well-founded. Following discussions elsewhere including -devel I
> have received enough offers of seconds by private email.
>
> As Matthew said, I don't think further lengthy discussion of the
> issues is likely to be productive, and therefore hope we can bring
> this swiftly to a vote. This is particularly true given the impact on
> the jessie release.
>
> Thanks,
> Ian.
>
> ** Begin Proposal **
>
> 0. Rationale
>
> Debian has decided (via the technical committee) to change its
> default init system for the next release. The technical committee
> decided not to decide about the question of "coupling" i.e. whether
> other packages in Debian may depend on a particular init system.
>
> This GR seeks to preserve the freedom of our users now to select an
> init system of their choice, and the project's freedom to select a
> different init system in the future. It will avoid Debian becoming
> accidentally locked in to a particular init system (for example,
> because so much unrelated software has ended up depending on a
> particular init system that the burden of effort required to change
> init system becomes too great). A number of init systems exist, and
> it is clear that there is not yet broad consensus as to what the
> best init system might look like.
>
> This GR does not make any comment on the relative merits of
> different init systems; the technical committee has decided upon the
> default init system for Linux for jessie.
>
> 1. Exercise of the TC's power to set policy
>
> For jessie and later releases, the TC's power to set technical
> policy (Constitution 6.1.1) is exercised as follows:
>
> 2. Loose coupling of init systems
>
> In general, software may not require a specific init system to be
> pid 1. The exceptions to this are as follows:
>
> * alternative init system implementations
> * special-use packages such as managers for init systems
> * cooperating groups of packages intended for use with specific init
> systems
>
> provided that these are not themselves required by other software
> whose main purpose is not the operation of a specific init system.
>
> Degraded operation with some init systems is tolerable, so long as
> the degradation is no worse than what the Debian project would
> consider a tolerable (non-RC) bug even if it were affecting all
> users. So the lack of support for a particular init system does not
> excuse a bug nor reduce its severity; but conversely, nor is a bug
> more serious simply because it is an incompatibility of some software
> with some init system(s).
>
> Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
> to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.
>
> 3. Notes and rubric
>
> This resolution is a Position Statement about Issues of the Day
> (Constitution 4.1.5), triggering the General Resolution override
> clause in the TC's resolution of the 11th of February.
>
> The TC's decision on the default init system for Linux in jessie
> stands undisturbed.
>
> However, the TC resolution is altered to add the additional text
> in sections (1) and (2) above.
>
> ** End Proposal **
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUP96EAAoJEOPjOSNItQ05JYcH/367UqEXLQ3BkWdm2nIGeNN2
> rAkdFTso+H3qckCIZnltbWuV+2cZmqXAFac627GoT2hvnu4KwrsiKgyu1PInVWPh
> 0XUt/8eeR95v2B9JYMuOSlxOOPLwgRZLpJ7vtd1pEU+Skrml0hoHFPCqbrFFathz
> K92Kv6HFd5v9vgc1nJir719wZ0zZe20ChSRc8wyMCaM68kddnmRJcpyWF7A3o2jD
> 9M4coOVlBQRt7kAu65LHV72OcjJbWq4qGeTIxBIExk1nWKNLRYEOHveF7nSaiLxk
> D4t0466fknL23SYukhpRSjAdcr6/3tHp7pbZGBHQfrszyb1pQvzL1oNGgBUn4dw=
> =eHpN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I hearby seconded this proposal,
Bernhard R. Link
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature