Re: Alternative proposal: support for alternative init systems is desirable but not mandatory
Lucas Nussbaum <email@example.com> writes:
> During the TC discussions in January/February 2014, the TC had a small
> legitimacy crisis, that resulted in the GR override clause of the
> default init resolution. I hope that the result of this GR will be able
> to serve as input in future TC discussions on similar/related topics.
As one of the people who thought that clause was a good idea, I don't
think that it's only there due to a legitimacy crisis. My opinion then,
which continues to be my position now, is that requiring a supermajority
to overrule the TC is a mistake. The bar for a GR is already high enough,
and we, as a project, already tend to defer to existing decisions. I
think that's enough protection against unnecessary reversals, and I think
a TC decision opposed by 60% of the project but still enforced is a very
unhealthy place to be.
The clause allowing an override by simple majority was a hack to disable
the constitution's super-majority requirement. I continue to be in favor
of a constitutional amendment to remove the super-majority requirement for
TC overrides via GR in general, thus eliminating the need for such hacks.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>