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

Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E



Jonathan Carter writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ...
> > 7. Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
> >    exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
> >    and/or will not accept, an init script.
> 
> I believe that the combination is better than the original individual
> proposals. Have the original submitters consented to such a merge?

No, they have not consented.  Quite the opposite.

Guillem has indicated his disagreement.  As I understand it he does
not think specific guidance of this kind is desirable.  Clearly that
means that G must remain on the ballot as-is, or (as Guillem has
suggested) with some additional text to make it clear that the lack of
specifics in G is deliberate.

Dmitry has not commented.  I find it difficult to predict his opinion
but I would guess he would prefer his own much shorter, simpler, text.
It is also likely that at least some of the seconders of E would
prefer the original version.

> I think that would be an important blocker before I could second
> this. If this merge would go ahead, I assume all the existing
> seconds would fall away and it would need new seconds.

So I think if G+E goes onto the ballot it should not replace either G
or E.

You and I are the only people who have expressed any kind of support
for G+E.  It would have been nice to have more time to explore whether
there is a constituency who want G+E on the ballot.  (As a rule of
thumb, is there anyone who would place it first?)  As it stands I
think G+E is (at least currently) lacking enough support.

As you have maybe seen, G+D seems to have substantial support and I am
hoping that it will make it onto the ballot.

> And on a personal note, I think at some point you also need to let it be
> so that you don't lose any sleep about it and not forget to take care of
> yourself*.

I would find this a lot easier if we weren't racing against the clock
(and, as a direct result, having procedural fights).

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.


Reply to: