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: