Hello, On Fri 15 Nov 2019 at 10:03AM -08, Russ Allbery wrote: > I think I would rather have the clear path forward your proposal lays out, > with a 6-12 month delay, than to have my options B or C that set up Policy > discussions for each new feature while maintainers move forward in advance > of Policy. I think all these options can be made to work, but your > proposal, as well as options A and D from my original message, are much > cleaner and more straightforward and I think would lead to less arguing > and fewer demands on the Policy process. I agree with this assessment that Ian's proposal would allow the Policy process to get more done, in the sense of both building and documenting project consensus. I appreciate that, from the point of view of a proponent of new systemd features, this getting more done in Policy will seem to be in tension with getting more done in the archive. As a counterpoint to that, I think that the Policy process is an important part of how we get things done in the archive in the longer term, and Ian's proposal speaks to that. If we found that the six month delay was repeatedly expiring with no serious attempts at non-systemd implementations of the new features, we could repeal this GR. -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature