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

Re: Review of proposals

lucas@debian.org wrote:

>In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
>a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
I agree.

>Concern about length of proposal D
>I am a bit concerned about the length of proposal D, and the fact that
>it is both very detailed and very vague.
>For example, it raises a (probably valid) concern about
>"non-init-related [declarative] systemd facilities", but:
I am seriously concerned about this too, because the "it is reasonable
to expect developers of non-systemd systems including non-Linux systems
to implement it" clause means that in the best case ANY progress will
still be dictated by the lowest common denominator of what is
"reasonable" (to whom?) to implement on non-Linux systems.
Also, I think that the total amount of developers for the non-Linux
ports is less than 10: what is reasonable to expect from them
considering the dire lack of manpower?

Let's consider the most simple things to implement: is it reasonable
to expect that the wider "non-systemd community" implement
systemd-tmpfiles, considering that they did not do this in the last 8

Are the supporters of proposal D willing to commit to support including
systemd-tmpfiles in policy and implementing it and other similar
interfaces for (all? Is one enough? How would this work?) the
alternative init systems if proposal D won?

>1/ it mixes it with an argument that declarative facilities are better.
>Well, maybe I can agree with that. I'm not sure it's something
>the project needs to issue a statement on through a GR.
Me too...

>Well, given that some of the criterias are not super-clear (see above),
>it's likely that policy consensus will be hard to reach. Then the TC is
>left with deciding based on the project's wishes as expressed in this
>GR. But assuming that proposal D wins, where is that project's wish on
>non-init-related declarative systemd facilities expressed?
The proosal title says that they do not want to block progress, but what
is that exactly?


Reply to: