Re: Proposal: Focus on systemd

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

Hi.

I'm trying to figure out if the new proposal is redundant with proposal
C.  The text is obviously very different, but I'm trying to figure out
if there are any practical differences.  Understand this is not a
criticism of this proposal, but if there are no significant practical
differences I am enclined to withdraw Proposal C.

Differences I notice:

* The preamble is shorter.  I think it has the same effect though.  If
  the intente of Proposal F is to limit our ability to change things if
  we reach a consensus more than proposal C, I'd like to see this more
  explicitly spelled out.  However, my current assumption is that as a
  statement under 4.1(5) it would be reasonable for project consensus
  should it diverge from this GR to guide the project without repealing
  the GR.

* The text about working with downstreams is different.
Unless explicitly directed otherwise by the project I at least plan to
continue to work with downstreams and help them figure out where their
efforts can be contributed and where they cannot.
So, I don't see this as a change.

* The language about using systemd facilities is even stronger than that
  in proposal C.

Are there any other changes that actually effect what maintainers could
or could not do between proposal C and F?