please stop sending me emails….
> On 04 Dec 2019, at 09:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 12:13:03 PM EST Sam Hartman wrote:
>> I note that our voting system does have recourse for people who believe
>> that the vote is called to early.
>>
>> They can vote FD
Russ Allbery writes:
> Jonas Smedegaard writes:
>> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
from Sam by now.
>>> Does anyone truly believe that another round of wordsmithing or changes
>>> to statements of principles
Ian Jackson wrote:
> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that he
plans to start the vote on the
On 2019/12/04 09:22, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I think short circuiting the discussion process casts into question the
> legitimacy of the process.
>
> I think you are wrong here. How can one know where to rank option G when
> it's
> clearly incomplete. I don't know if I like it or not.
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
>> 1. We exercise the DPL's power to set the minimum discussion
>>period for the init systems GR to end at 23:59 UTC on
>>Friday the 6th of December. (Constitution 4.1(3).)
>
> Does that even make sense, since the Secretary has stated that
Am Mi., 4. Dez. 2019 um 12:11 Uhr schrieb Matthew Vernon :
>
> Russ Allbery writes:
>
> > Jonas Smedegaard writes:
> >> Quoting Russ Allbery (2019-12-03 19:19:50)
>
> I took Russ' advice and slept on this; I had rather expected a response
> from Sam by now.
>
> >>> Does anyone truly believe that
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> and will agree to whatever formal step is required to get it in.
It would be helpful if Sam and/or Kurt would confirm or
Hi Sam,
On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 15:25 -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "Ansgar" == Ansgar writes:
>
> Ansgar> Adam Borowski writes:
> >> * dependencies on "systemd | other" rather than "other |
> >> systemd"; this is a no-op on a systemd system (installed by
> >> debootstrap
Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
>
> To make it concrete I
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 06:04:19PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> One of the options I had in my original proposal was that we could drop the
> requirement for transitions through apt, and instead provide transition
> scripts that use dpkg's --force options to go through an invalid state
> instead
On 2019/12/04 19:11, Svante Signell wrote:
> I've purposely kept out of this discussion, hoping that you all can
> behave in a civil manner. Obviously not. I don't rank you mail
> defective, there have bee several other on this list. Anyway, this
> whole GR is about systemd or sysvinit, and
gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> I found and find Guillem's text very appealing; and I also can see
> that people who are involved in the issue on the technical or the
> policy side would like to have concrete answers to the pending
> questions and guidance for moving forward. For the
On 19-12-03 11 h 15, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I have been proposing that there should be an alternative to Guillem's
> proposal. I need a few more days to do this. (Guillem's proposal has
> IMO excellent framing but lacks suitable specific guidance. I hope we
> can make a version which combines
Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 04:43:39PM +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> For one of the problems (apt making unexpected decisions) that is
> pretty close to what is the case. We do find such issues again and
> again, including too late, i.e. only after a stable release, also for
> other packages that
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote:
> Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL
election also had the full text of the options.
Kurt
Hi Kurt,
On 04.12.19 20:18, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:13:30PM +0100, Micha Lenk wrote:
Does a ballot for a DPL vote contain the platforms or just the options?
Just the options. But looking at old ballots, the last non-DPL
election also had the full text of the options.
Hi,
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:24:40PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > One of the options I had in my original proposal was that we could drop the
> > requirement for transitions through apt, and instead provide transition
> > scripts that use dpkg's --force options to go through an invalid
Hello,
I've purposely kept out of this discussion, hoping that you all can
behave in a civil manner. Obviously not. I don't rank you mail
defective, there have bee several other on this list. Anyway, this
whole GR is about systemd or sysvinit, and everybody pretends they
don't know about
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 12:24:36PM +, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> Gerardo Ballabio writes:
>
> > Yes, that's right -- but I guess that if a sensible change is proposed
> > before the actual ballot is sent out, Sam and Kurt will not obstruct
> > and will agree to whatever formal step is required
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
Hi,
Do you think it's useful to also have the text of all the options
in the ballot?
Here is the draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
This vote
I don't know if the text should be in the ballot.
I did ask someone who has not been in this discussion to review the
ballot without the text.
They are not a DD.
But they found just the choice titles entirely mystifying.
But it would be really long with all the text.
Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
>
> To make it concrete I
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 18:04 +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 04:43:39PM +0100, Ansgar wrote:
> > For one of the problems (apt making unexpected decisions) that is
> > pretty close to what is the case. We do find such issues again and
> > again, including too late, i.e. only
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
> > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking
> > of the options given my ambivalence.
>
> To make
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> > gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"): > > So yes, for me a
>> combination of options G and D would
Le 04/12/2019 à 22:43, gregor herrmann a écrit :
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
>>> So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
>>> more accurately: would have been ) helpful in finalizing my ranking
Jonathan,
FYI: From a mail From Uoti Urpala:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/12/msg00054.html
fact: There is in practice no development of new alternative init
systems happening, and no clear reason to believe that if it
hypothetically did occur, there would be particular problems.
> "Svante" == Svante Signell writes:
Svante> Jonathan, FYI: From a mail From Uoti Urpala:
Svante> https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2019/12/msg00054.html
That mail had unfortunate tone and several people replied to the thread
indicating that the approach taken was not
How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head.
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:53:10PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> How can you issue the ballot without consensus. That is over my head.
What do you think there is no consensus about that is relevant?
I did not see anybody sponsor Ian's GR yet, so it seems to me I
have no other option than to
Changed the subject slightly.
Sorry Sam,
replying to this list with the previous mail does not work (evolution).
Nevertheless being Swedish I don't find any offensive tone in my
wording, please tell me where I failed! (As you might no know we are
very honest in what we do (and write)), no
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 10:43:53PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > gregor herrmann writes ("Re: Reframing"):
> > > So yes, for me a combination of options G and D would be (or maybe
> > > more accurately: would have been ) helpful in
> "Svante" == Svante Signell writes:
Svante> Nevertheless being Swedish I don't find any offensive tone
Svante> in my wording, please tell me where I failed! (
I don't know I'd say failed.
Looking back, I definitely think this is a language disconnect and
perhaps nothing more.
Quoting Ian Jackson (2019-12-04 18:14:38)
> Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> > it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> > Dmitry's E rather than my option D -
On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 at 17:14:38 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
> and integrates different software that provides similar or equivalent
>
On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thanks for this. No-one else has said anything. Having thought about
> it, I think Guillem's framing would lead me to a conclusion closer to
> Dmitry's E rather than my option D - but either is arguable.
As I mentioned in my “Reframing”
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:21:20 -0500
Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote:
> [...]
> So far I've stayed away from writing on the list, since I think it has
> been very verbose and I find that tiresome.
>
> I'm tired of this GR already and in my heart, I wish I could just vote
> and be done with it.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 05:14:38PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> website version. I haven't had time to check that.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:14:38 +
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> [...]
>
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> website version. I haven't had time
Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]:
> Ian, please don't.
Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own
mail I'm replying to. While I do stand by not wanting this proposal by
Ian to proceed, the "reasoning" paragraph that followed is not rightly
42 matches
Mail list logo
