[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [draft] Draft text on Init Systems GR

Ian, first, thanks for a really great and constructive proposal.
I'm assuming you plan to propose this as an amendment and get seconds.

There's one area where I'm hoping you can come up with different
wording, because at least for me, your current wording fails at being
excellent to each other.

>It is also for maintainers of
>   non-default init systems, and the surrounding community, to decide
>   what level of compromised functionality is acceptable to users of
>   non-default init systems.

Every time I read that, I hear that the non-default init system
community wants to be able to block other people's work until they are
satisfied that the level of functionality is not too compromised.

My understanding is that you are not actually trying to do that.
So, if you are not trying to block other people, but instead are trying
to avoid having non-default init users blocked can we find wording that
is more clear?
My emotional reaction to your current wording is really strong and
negative.  That's true even though I think I know what you're trying to
say and have spent significant time trying to reduce my reaction.

Even if you are trying to block other people's work, there is probably
wording that at least for me doesn't get such a strong emotional

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: