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

Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and systemd

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> writes:

> Even though it always says it's using 4.1.5, I have a hard time seeing
> why I shouldn't also put them under 4.1.4 (and 4.1.3). As currently
> written, I will most likely interprete them as using the power of 4.1.4,
> and so require a 2:1 majority.

Here's my reasoning for why 4.1.3 or 4.1.5 is correct.

Deciding Policy is the authority area for the Policy Editors, and deciding
RC bugs is the authority area for the release team, both of which are
delegated teams whose authority derives from the delegation and not from
the TC, so a GR can make decisions in those areas under 4.1.3.

6.1.1 *allows* the TC to decide technical policy, but that power is not
said to be *exclusive* (and in practice it certainly isn't), so I believe
a GR deciding technical policy does not *have* to use the powers of 4.1.4,
but can instead use the powers of 4.1.3 to make a delegate decision under
an area of delegation that includes matters of technical policy.

The implication, then, of stating that this GR is under 4.1.5 or 4.1.3 is
that it does not bind the TC, and the TC could make a different decision
on technical policy.  I think that's correct; any such appeal will happen
at some point in the future where the situation has changed, and allowing
the TC to make a new decision without requiring the project have a new GR
feels like a feature.  Also, I have confidence that the TC will take the
GR results into account.

Speaking as a Policy Editor, I don't particularly care if this is a 4.1.3
decision (it's not an override since the Policy Editors have not made a
decision here) or a 4.1.5 position statement.  The outcome will be the
same in either case.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: