On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:10 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > I've attached below an initial draft of an option for #762194 for > discussion. > > Steve indicated that he wanted to revise/contribute to this option, so I > don't believe we should call for votes until that happens. > > ==BEGIN== > > In #762194, the Technical Committee was asked to use its power under > §6.1.4 to override the decision of the init package maintainers to > depend on systemd-sysv as the first alternative dependency, thus > ensuring both new installs and upgrades use systemd by default. > > 1. The CTTE determined in #727708 that systemd should be the default > init system in Debian. > > 2. In <[email protected]>[1], the maintainers of the init > package announced their transition plan for migrating to systemd as > the default init system on both installs and new upgrades. > > ==OPTION A== > > Using its power under §6.1.5 to make statements: > > 3. The CTTE affirms the decision of the init system package > maintainers to transition to systemd by default. > > 4. The CTTE appreciates the effort of Debian contributors to mitigate > any issues with the transition by: > > a) Providing a fallback boot entry for sysvinit when systemd is the > default init in grub (#757298) > > b) Developing a mechanism to warn on non-standard inittab > configurations which are unsupported in systemd. > > c) Providing documentation on how to opt to remain with sysvinit on > both initial installs and upgrades. > > d) Numerous bug reports and fixes by contributors who have tested > the systemd migration in their configurations.
Thanks to the init system topic, the technical committee's political capital is metaphorically on empty [0]. More activity in this area, of any type, is very likely to cause more harm than good. Abstention is likely the wisest option currently available; given that rolling the dice on another resolution could consume those scant remaining fumes. Even if the resolution itself sounds a lot like the status quo, there is still huge risk that it will annoy at least someone (consuming more capital of course and producing more negativity in the project) whereas abstention, as a signal to the project that further design by committee may be coming to an end, will not. So, with that said, I would like to suggest that the committee consider declining further init system arbitration acts, starting by closing the two currently open tech-ctte bugs as declined. Please consider instead allowing the currently binding TC init system arbitrations to stand; including the automatic switching statement from last month [1], which defers the evolution of solutions to project contributors working on actual technical changes. Also, as a modest proposal, when circumstance allows, please consider that impeding said technical progress [2] consumes political capital as well and that the wisdom of a helping hand may produce a far more positive impact on the project. Best wishes, Mike [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/12/msg00041.html [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/11/msg00000.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/773895 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mnvx8sn-y9aikewm_s4cwwpwvdaklqyyok0rkdxqp7...@mail.gmail.com
