> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield writes:
Michael> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on
Michael> poor behavior by some individuals instead of being based on
Michael> the active efforts of those trying to improve the end
Michael> result (
The CFV was not
On 2019-12-05 at 04:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
>> Reframing -
>>
>> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I
>> mean yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system,
>> but we do have other
I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the G+D
proposal weakens option G alone.
[1]:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
This puts us into a complicated situation.
* If G+D had been proposed and sponsored before the CFV,
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:32:28AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> At minimum, "X is the default" means "you will get X if you don't take
> any action to avoid doing so". All definitions I can think of seem to
> share that baseline.
> At something like maximum, "X is the default" could be read
Sam Hartman writes:
> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the G+D
> proposal weakens option G alone.
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
Later in that thread (
Message-ID:
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Sam Hartman writes:
>> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the
>> G+D proposal weakens option G alone.
>>
>> [1]:
>>
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Do I assume correctly, therefore, that you now agree that
Matthew> G+D should be on the ballot?
I'm not going to stand in the way.
I think everything I wrote in my message is still true, including that I
think the secretary is in a
Hi,
On 05/12/2019 15:21, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Sam Hartman writes:
>> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the
>> G+D proposal weakens option G alone.
>>
>> [1]:
>>
On Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:59:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
Thank you.
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
Ian Jackson writes:
> Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to interpret Sam's
> mail as taking those steps ?
For the record, I also
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:10:00AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> > could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> > start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E [and 1 more
messages]"):
> Since I didn't see anybody complain about this, I will put it on
> the ballot. I will try to update the website and ballot later this
> evening.
Thanks. I think G+D comes between D and E in the ordering.
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> [ ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> [ ] Choice 5:
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
>
> I hereby propose it and hope to have it on the ballot, given that
> there are enough seconds. I do *not* intend to replace the existing
> proposal
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> > [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> > [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ ] Choice 4: Support
Hello,
Since the secretary has indicated he is going to put this on the ballot,
I too second it.
On Thu 05 Dec 2019 at 11:59AM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
>
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows:
> * c the HTML from proposal D
> * Adding the new title
> * Replacing the PRINCIPLES section by c the text
> from G, and numbering the paragraphs as clauses
> * Renumbering
Hi,
On 2019/12/05 13:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: 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 to check that.
Hi,
Here is a new 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 is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the
Michael Lustfield writes:
> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on poor behavior by
> some individuals instead of being based on the active efforts of those trying
> to
> improve the end result (following the vote). I do not believe the latter
> should
> be punished for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> -8<-
>
> 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
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Reframing
> -
>
> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I mean
> yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system, but we do
> have other components in the distribution with multiple or non-portable
>
Hi,
On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> -8<-
>
> 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
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: 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 to check that.
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
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> If there is a consensus that new options can still be added, I
> will consider adding them. As long as I don't sent out the call
> for votes, things can be changed. But it currently seems unlikely to
> me, so I'm proceeding in
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
> >
> > Hmm, I've not checked the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Sam has decided to cut short this process. We started this public
> discussion less than a month ago. This is very short.
I still think the timeline is too abbreviated but
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That is an unfortunate effect, yes. I mean, my opinion is (as you
> > know) that G _is_ missing something. But it would be much better if
> > you as the proposer
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
>
> Hmm, I've not checked the actual differences between the combined and
> the individual
Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> 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
31 matches
Mail list logo
