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 response.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature