]] Russ Allbery (Dropped DAM and personal Ccs)
> Second, Matthew's proposal explicitly doesn't change the TC decision, so > I'm not even sure what you think would be aborted here. It wouldn't have > any effect on the choice of default. It dictates in a top-down manner to > individual developers how to do their work and undermines the flexibility > of Debian contributors in ways that I think are unnecessary and a little > condescending, and requires work be done without identifying anyone who is > going to do the work, which is why I voted against it. But it's not some > sort of end-run around the previous decision. The previous decision does say that it is replaced completely by the text of such a position statement and I do note that the proposed GR does, very carefully, not refer to systemd as the default. It makes for a clumsier construction, which when combined with the level of legal-ish arguments being made here, makes me suspicious. It feels like we're way past rough consensus and working code and running at full speed into a courtroom. > Third, even if it were, as Andreas points out, we put that clause in there > intentionally. If the project wants to change the decision about the > default init system, it can do so with a 1:1 majority. I don't think anybody has a problem with the non-cornercase interpretations of the GR. > I think the way this GR is phrased is odd, and I agree with Bdale that I > see no reason why it couldn't just be a straight statement on issues of > the day without being attached to a TC decision. Currently, it's attached > to a decision about the default init system while not actually saying > anything about the default init system, which I think is strange. I > concur with Kurt that while procedurally this may be allowed, I don't > think it's a particularly good idea. I think it's a terrible idea. Ian writes that he specificially made it as broad as he did in order to create this situation so that anything could be included. > Also, separately, please don't attack Ian for things that Matthew > proposed, or for clauses in previous decision that Bdale drafted in > conjunction with the project secretary. This is not a situation of Ian's > creation. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2014/03/msg00020.html, by Ian: That GR override clause was written by me. I specifically drew it widely precisely so that, amongst other things, a GR could answer questions that the TC has failed to answer. I don't think pointing at Ian for the clause is particularly unfair. Ian's also seconded the proposed GR, which generally means you agree with whatever you're seconding. -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
