Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Anthony Towns]

On 6 February 2014 16:27, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> Rankings between remaning actual outcomes is:
>   4x  UL > DL > UT > DT  (steve, colin, ian, andi)
>   2x  DT > DL > UT > UL  (russ, don)

Ah! I thought there was something to add here

The above votes divide neatly into upstart v systemd camps. Given
Bdale and Keith have expressed a preference for systemd previously,
presumably they fall onto the systemd side; so will vote presumably
vote either DT or DL above the other options, and will vote DL > UL,
and DT > UT.

In that case,

  DL > UT6:2, 7:1 or 8:0

  DL >= DT  6:2, 5:3 or 4:4
  UL >= UT  6:2, 5:3 or 4:4
  UL >= DT  6:2, 5:3 or 4:4

  DT = UT  4:4
  DL = UL  4:4

UT would thus have no chance of being in the Schwartz set (it doesn't
beat anything, and is beaten by DL).

Possible outcomes are then:

  DL >= DT  6:2, 5:3 or 4:4
  UL >= DT  6:2, 5:3 or 4:4
  DL = UL4:4

ie:
 - if either Bdale or Keith vote DT below UL or DL, DT loses, and the
result is determined by Bdale's casting vote between UL and DL
 - otherwise, the result is determined by Bdale's casting vote amongst
UL, DL and DT

Also, Russ correctly points out:
> >   DL > GR 6:0
> For whatever it's worth, I think this line is wrong.  I voted GR above DL.

Hopefully there wasn't much else wrong with the analysis. (Having 10
options on a vote that's supposed to have its results tallied by hand
seems nuts to me...)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/cajs_lcvgqenurnnuzffvwfw29wvadt3su1wveabffnwc-l2...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie

[Josh Triplett]

Anthony Towns wrote:
> On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson  wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >> >   Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
> >> >   pid 1 ?
> >>   Q2a: Is it OK for packages providing init systems to provide other
> >> APIs beyond just the minimum needed for starting/stopping services?
> > We might disagree on the extent, perhaps, but I doubt anyone on the
> > committee would vote against this in its general form;
> 
> So looking at the votes today, I would have said that both Ian and
> Andi's original votes are against this (ranking the options which
> allow specifying a dependency on a specific init below further
> discussion), and probably Steve's does too, although I assume that's
> more an objection against the wording.
> 
> At least, the impact seems like it is:
> 
>  - init systems can provide whatever extra APIs they like
>  - other packages can only use extra APIs if they have a dependency on
> the providing package
>  - packages may not depend on specific init systems
> 
>  * therefore packages cannot use the extra APIs

I agree with your conclusion on the practical effect here.

I'm also amused that exactly the same logic readily applies at the next
level down, to an init system making use of APIs and functionality that
Linux has and other systems do not.  In both cases, the question is the
same: least common denominator, or actually using available
functionality?

(To forestall the obvious objection: "optional" is the same as "least
common denominator", in that it effectively prevents *relying* on that
functionality, and thus forces the creation of a
least-common-denominator fallback, which everything higher in the stack
must then cope with.)

- Josh Triplett


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140206070218.GA829@leaf

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 05/02/14 at 22:41 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Colin Watson dixit:
> 
> >("Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap").
> 
> I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
> anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
> to install Debian… and debootstrap goes by whatever ftp-masters put
> into the override files, and whatever package dependencies and meta
> information (such as Essential: yes) there are.
> 
> So, “jurisdiction overlaps” seems to fit quite well.

As far as I remember, I don't think that any of the d-i maintainers,
debootstrap maintainers, ftpmasters, or sysvinit maintainers have
claimed that it was their sole jurisdiction to decide on the default
init system. So I agree that there's jurisdiction overlap.

Also, given that:

  The Project Leader may:
4. Make any decision for whom noone else has responsibility.

and:

  The Project Leader may:
1. Appoint Delegates or delegate decisions to the Technical
Committee.

  The Leader may define an area of ongoing responsibility or a
  specific decision and hand it over to another Developer or to the
  Technical Committee.

  Once a particular decision has been delegated and made the Project
  Leader may not withdraw that delegation; however, they may
  withdraw an ongoing delegation of particular area of
  responsibility.

I would be very happy, if felt necessary by the Secretary, to delegate
that decision to the Technical Committee.

Lucas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Russ Allbery]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> GR comparisons are:

>   UL > GR 5:1 (russ against)
>   UT = GR 3:3 (steve, colin, don in favour; ian, andi, russ against)
>   DL > GR 6:0

For whatever it's worth, I think this line is wrong.  I voted GR above DL.

>   DT > GR 4:2 (ian, andi against)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mwi492bc@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:
> On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

>> So let me expand on that a little.  Image the following options
>> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
>> - B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
>> - FD

> In this case, I don't know A could be anything but 2:1, baring riders
> from the CTTE. If A is technical, it needs the power of the CTTE under
> §4.1.4 which requires 2:1. [I suppose something could be written which
> would fall under the DPL's remit.]

> As I understand it, we'd like to make everything be 1:1, and the method
> we're trying is to write a proposal in such a way that it automatically
> enshrouds a non-technical statement by the project in the power of the
> CTTE.

> It may be that we can't actually do that, and should instead just have
> an agreement between CTTE members to enact a decision which followed a
> position statement GR under §4.1.5.

I think what we're trying to say looks something like this:

If the project holds a GR vote on the topic of the default init
system, the winning option of that vote replaces this text in its
entirety and becomes the decision of the Technical Committee.  The
winning option of the GR vote for this purpose will be decided
following the normal rules for deciding the outcome of a General
Resolution, with the exception that the 2:1 majority normally required
to overule the Technical Committee will not be taken into account.

I think this works, although it does create the possibility of a rather
odd situation, and I'm not quite sure how it would work procedurally.
Suppose that the project votes on a GR with the following imaginary
options:

A. The default init system for jessie will be [whatever the TC picked]
B. The default init system for jessie will be a single /etc/rc script

and suppose that B beats A beats FD, but B does not beat FD by a 2:1
majority.

The result of that GR is A.  However, the choice picked by the above
algorithm is B.  So B becomes the TC decision, despite the fact that A is
the result of the GR, and A, despite winning, now constitutes a TC
override and fails to go into effect.  Unless you think of A happening
"before" the TC decision changes, at which point the TC can no longer
override it?

It's weird.

One thing that would make it less weird is if the GR phrased whatever
option concurs with the TC as saying that the project upholds the TC
decision, rather than stating what that decision is.  Then, in the
scenario given above, A and B become the same as soon as the TC decision
is changed by the vote, and everything stays consistent.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87txcc92gz@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Anthony Towns]

On 6 February 2014 11:20, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the
> same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop,
> rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started
> anyway.

The votes so far are:

 ian: UL DL OL VL GR *FD* UT OT VT DT
 andi: UL DL OL VL *FD* GR UT DT OT VT

 steve: UL DL *FD* OL VL UT DT OT=VT GR
 russ: DT GR DL UT *FD* OT VT UL OL VL
 colin: UL DL OL UT DT GR *FD* OT VL VT
 don: DT DL UT UL OT OL VT VL GR *FD*

 ian2: FD UL DL OL VL GR UT OT VT DT
 andi2: FD UL DL OL VL GR UT DT OT VT

With the initial vote, the following options are eliminated:

 OT, VT  (ian, andi, steve, russ vote these below FD)

With Ian and Andi's changed votes, the following options are eliminated:

 OL, VL (ian2, andi2, steve, russ vote these below FD)

That leaves UL, UT, DL, DT and GR still in the race against FD.

If Steve changes his vote to FD > *, and Russ does likewise as he's
stated, the vote will be decided as FD again.

If no one changes their vote, then, at present, the comparisons are:

  UL = FD 3:3 (steve, colin, don in favour; russ, ian2, andi2 against)
  UT = FD 3:3 (russ, colin, don in favour; steve, ian/ian2, andi/andi2 against)
  DT = FD 3:3 (russ, colin, don in favour; steve, ian/ian2, andi/andi2 against)
  GR = FD 3:3 (russ, colin, don in favour; steve, ian2, andi/andi2 against)

So those options will be eliminated if Bdale and Keith don't vote, or
if either Bdale or Keith vote them below FD.

  DL > FD 4:2 (ian2, andi2 against)

That can only be eliminated at this point if both Bdale and Keith vote
it below FD. It's the only option that had all six original votes
ranking it above FD.

(As it stands, DL would thus win the vote since all other options are
eliminated)

As it stands, that also means that Bdale and Keith could collude to
determine the outcome of the vote amonst {D,U}{L,T} by only voting the
option they prefer above FD.

GR comparisons are:

  UL > GR 5:1 (russ against)
  UT = GR 3:3 (steve, colin, don in favour; ian, andi, russ against)
  DL > GR 6:0
  DT > GR 4:2 (ian, andi against)

Rankings between remaning actual outcomes is:

  4x  UL > DL > UT > DT  (steve, colin, ian, andi)
  2x  DT > DL > UT > UL  (russ, don)

So that's

   UL > DL > DT  4:2
   UL > UT > DT  4:2
   DL > UT  6:0

It seems to me that if this ballot fails to FD, any future ballots
should skip options:

  OT, VT  (insufficient support over FD)
  OL, VL  (at least 6 of 8 committee members prefer UL and DL over
these options)

It seems unlikely that there's any actual support for UT, either.


Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAJS_LCVhLfgK9zi6PjrZnDQ8edd+qHYczG-=da79eh1pqtv...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727708: TC resolution revised draft

[Adrian Bunk]

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 06:06:35PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>...
> So if for example 4 members of the TC would say "only systemd is an 
> acceptable choice", and the other 4 members of the TC would say "only 
> upstart is an acceptable choice", then any result other than "further 
> discussion" would be caused by a voting error.
> 
> And this is not a problem of the Condorcet voting system, this is due to 
> the explicit statement "There is a quorum of two." in the Constitution.

For the record:

The last paragraph I wrote here is nonsense (and unfortunately noone 
noticed and corrected my mistake).

The reason why FD would win in this scenario is not the quorum, the 
reason is that every option that should be taken into consideration
has to beat FD.

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140206061302.gc22...@bunk.dyndns.info

Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?

[Russ Allbery]

Don Armstrong  writes:

> Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and
> their drafts?

I personally suspect that we have exhausted the capacity of the TC to deal
with this problem, and that spending more time on it may actually result
in worse decisions than we would make right now.  Currently, I like each
ballot we're getting less than I liked the previous one.  So I'm dubious.
Chances are quite high that this will be decided by GR anyway at this
point.

That said, I'm willing to give it a try if other folks disagree with me.

I can make the following dates:

> February 7 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 10 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 11 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 14 2014 18:00:00 GMT

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878utoajph@windlord.stanford.edu

Bug#727708: call for votes on default Linux init system for jessie

[Anthony Towns]

Hey Colin,

On 29 January 2014 21:13, Colin Watson  wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 07:21:43AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> >   Q2: Is it OK for packages to depend on a specific init system as
>> >   pid 1 ?
>>   Q2a: Is it OK for packages providing init systems to provide other
>> APIs beyond just the minimum needed for starting/stopping services?
> We might disagree on the extent, perhaps, but I doubt anyone on the
> committee would vote against this in its general form;

So looking at the votes today, I would have said that both Ian and
Andi's original votes are against this (ranking the options which
allow specifying a dependency on a specific init below further
discussion), and probably Steve's does too, although I assume that's
more an objection against the wording.

At least, the impact seems like it is:

 - init systems can provide whatever extra APIs they like
 - other packages can only use extra APIs if they have a dependency on
the providing package
 - packages may not depend on specific init systems

 * therefore packages cannot use the extra APIs

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAJS_LCVyWXwTGjK0K=pooaz+pvvngrbxu1_rcblz7h6079x...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Russ Allbery writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's
> concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I
> don't object to cancelling the vote for that, I'm also not sure it's
> necessary.

I would prefer to deal with this in the same resolution, as I have
already said.  I'm sorry that I didn't make sure Kurt was properly
involved in the drafting.

>  However, if Steve would like to cancel the vote to have more
> time to draft his compromise, I'm happy to do so.

For me, a desire to cancel the vote would follow directly from being
upset that the vote had started.  But this whole thread has
demonstrated to me in many ways that what I think is obvious is far
from uncontentious.

> I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the
> same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop,
> rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started
> anyway.
> 
> I'm open to being convinced that I have this backwards and should just
> change my vote now.

I think Steve's failure to rank FD first is probably a procedural
error on his part.  I've tried to catch him on IRC but not had a clear
response yet.

Or perhaps he feels it would be rude to rank FD first to try to vote
down what he felt was a premature CFV.  But as I have said I think
that's exactly what FD is for.  FD means precisely "further
discussion".  So, Steve, if that's what's holding you back please do
change your vote.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.58703.478811.515...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?

[Ian Jackson]

Don Armstrong writes ("Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?"):
> Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and
> their drafts?

I'd be happy to do that.

> If you believe a meeting would be useful, please respond, and delete all
> of the non-working dates.
...

The remaining ones which I can make:

> February 10 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 11 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 13 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 14 2014 18:00:00 GMT
> February 17 2014 18:00:00 GMT

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21234.58393.558258.68...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  writes:

> The only change is to rank FD first.  I think we should give Steve a
> chance to draft his compromise, and also to satisfy Kurt.

> I encourage others to do likewise.  If Steve and one other person
> does this then this vote too will be cancelled.

To say explicitly to avoid making people read my mind: I think Kurt's
concerns can be dealt with by a separate vote if necessary, so while I
don't object to cancelling the vote for that, I'm also not sure it's
necessary.  However, if Steve would like to cancel the vote to have more
time to draft his compromise, I'm happy to do so.

I therefore intend to change my vote to list FD first iff Steve does the
same, since I think it's up to him to decide whether he wants to stop,
rework, and start again, or just continue on since the vote has started
anyway.

I'm open to being convinced that I have this backwards and should just
change my vote now.  Also, I'm happy to change my vote if Kurt disagrees
with the idea that we can fix his concerns in a subsequent vote and feels
like the vote should not continue.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87y51pm3zl@windlord.stanford.edu

Additional CTTE Drafting Meeting useful?

[Don Armstrong]

Would one more IRC meeting be useful to nail down the ballot options and
their drafts?

Our next scheduled meeting is the 27th of February, but we could have
one on the 13th or earlier at the usual time if that worked for
everyone.

I can do the following dates:

February 7 2014 18:00:00 GMT
February 10 2014 18:00:00 GMT
February 11 2014 18:00:00 GMT
February 13 2014 18:00:00 GMT
February 14 2014 18:00:00 GMT
February 17 2014 18:00:00 GMT

If you believe a meeting would be useful, please respond, and delete all
of the non-working dates.

If you think it wouldn't be useful, but would still be willing to
attend, indicate that, and do the same. [If you wouldn't be willing to
show up, just tell respond to say that too.]

Thanks.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

You think to yourself, hey, it's a test tube, for God's sake. Pretty
soon, though, the rush from a test tube isn't enough. You want to
experiment more and more. Then before you know it, you're laying in
the corner of a lab somewhere with a Soxhlet apparatus in one hand,
a three neck flask in the other, strung out and begging for grant
money.
 -- Tim Mitchell, 1994 Ig Nobel Chemistry Prize Speech


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140206010246.ge5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So let me expand on that a little.  Image the following options
> - A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
> - B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
> - FD

In this case, I don't know A could be anything but 2:1, baring riders
from the CTTE. If A is technical, it needs the power of the CTTE under
§4.1.4 which requires 2:1. [I suppose something could be written which
would fall under the DPL's remit.]

As I understand it, we'd like to make everything be 1:1, and the method
we're trying is to write a proposal in such a way that it automatically
enshrouds a non-technical statement by the project in the power of the
CTTE.

It may be that we can't actually do that, and should instead just have
an agreement between CTTE members to enact a decision which followed a
position statement GR under §4.1.5.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

Maybe I did steal your heart
and I am such a perfect criminal
that you never noticed
 -- a softer world #481
http://www.asofterworld.com/index.php?id=481


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140206004854.gd5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Russ Allbery]

Ian Jackson  writes:

> Options on the ballot:

>   DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

>   UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

>   OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

>   VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>   VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

>   GR   project should decide via GR

>   FD   further discussion

I vote:

DT GR DL UT FD OT VT UL OL VL

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


pgph080OprmMA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:32:53AM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > > I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> > > that you asked me about this before calling for votes.
> > 
> > So assuming that the current vote is cancelled due to 4 people ranking
> > FD first: would you care to say what the wording should be ?  I don't
> > think any of us care very much about this wording and we all agree
> > about the intent, so it shouldn't be controversial.
> 
> My biggest concern is that you can only do this if the result of
> the GR is FD.

So let me expand on that a little.  Image the following options
- A: something that doesn't overrule the ctte (1:1)
- B: something that does overrule the ctte (2:1)
- FD

If option B would win but is dropped because of the 2:1 majority
and option A wins instead the project would have made a decision
and you can't overrule that anymore.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205235618.gb13...@roeckx.be

Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 12:40:22AM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> 
> I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I
> guess it's up to the secretary.)

I've actually asked that they do that before, but it's not really
a requirement.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205234631.ga13...@roeckx.be

Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Philipp Kern]

On 2014-02-05 17:36, Ian Jackson wrote:
Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system 
resolution"):

I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.


I vote:

 1.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT 
allowed
 2.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT 
allowed

 3.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 4.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT 
allowed

 5.  GR   project should decide via GR
 6.  FD   further discussion
 7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 9.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is 
allowed

 10. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed


I'd prefer if CTTE members would actually sign their votes. (But I guess 
it's up to the secretary.)


Kind regards
Philipp Kern


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/23d5e36d8b3c05fd9b6fa9d8d1ceb...@hub.kern.lc

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:09:25PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> > that you asked me about this before calling for votes.
> 
> So assuming that the current vote is cancelled due to 4 people ranking
> FD first: would you care to say what the wording should be ?  I don't
> think any of us care very much about this wording and we all agree
> about the intent, so it shouldn't be controversial.

My biggest concern is that you can only do this if the result of
the GR is FD.  It should be more explicit that if the option is
trying to override the ctte but failed to reach the 2:1 majority
requirement you will re-evaluate the results with the 2:1 majority
requiremented to override the ctte changed to 1:1 and adopt the
outcome of that (which might still be FD).


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205233253.ga13...@roeckx.be

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
> that you asked me about this before calling for votes.

So assuming that the current vote is cancelled due to 4 people ranking
FD first: would you care to say what the wording should be ?  I don't
think any of us care very much about this wording and we all agree
about the intent, so it shouldn't be controversial.

Thanks,
Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.50341.547155.436...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

I hereby change my vote:

1.  FD   further discussion
2.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
4.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
5.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
6.  GR   project should decide via GR
7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
9.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
10. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed

The only change is to rank FD first.  I think we should give Steve a
chance to draft his compromise, and also to satisfy Kurt.

I encourage others to do likewise.  If Steve and one other person
does this then this vote too will be cancelled.

Thanks,
Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.50035.242781.718...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:29:09PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> The original request to us was made by Paul Tagliamonte, who I don't
> think is on the d-i team (or if he is I hope he'll forgive me for
> observing he isn't very active).

FTR - I'm not on the d-i team, and havn't been. No worries :)

> The only people who might reasonably be described as vaguely current
> maintainers of parts of d-i whom I can immediately find on a quick scan
> of the early parts of this bug are Wouter and myself; Tollef also
> contributed a good deal in the past, and I may have missed one or two.
> But I don't think any of these people have been acting as d-i
> maintainers here.  People like Cyril and Christian, who would be more
> obvious candidates for such a label, have not commented on this bug.
> 
> I would have thought that this is more clearly handled under 6.1(2)
> ("Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap").

I agree here. I think I quoted this in a followup after I figured out my
initial mail was contentless:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=35;att=0;bug=727708

| It is requested that the tech-ctte make a decision as to the init system
| Debian shall use as the default, and make a judgement call on where the
| efforts to resolve this situation shall go (patching *around* the lack
| of systemd, or patching software to use systemd)
| 
| I believe this is within the ctte's jurisdiction, given 6.1 section 2.


The TC is of course fully within it's rights to tweak under which
sections it rules.

Cheers,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte   |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Steve Langasek writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I vote:
> 
>  1.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>  2.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>  3.  FD   further discussion

If you are serious about wanting to discuss the drafting further, you
should vote FD first

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.49740.694833.990...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> Please do not assume I have time to read everything.  I don't.  I
> actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
> have ignored.

I'm sorry if I also missed a mail.

> > Anyway, I think as regards T vs L we are chiefly exercising our power
> > to set technical policy.  As regards the default init system we are
> > making a decision which has been requested of us by the people
> > normally responsible (which would be the d-i maintainersI think).
> 
> I would like to point out that this was requested by Paul
> Tagliamonte, who as far as I know is not in the d-i team.  I
> didn't see anybody from the d-i team request that you make a
> decision for them, but I might have missed that.

I assume you would like us to cancel the current vote and address
these points.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.49662.662790.188...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system 
resolution"):
> I am very unhappy to see this CFV in my inbox this morning.

I'm sorry about that.

>  I made it known that I was not satisfied with the set of ballot
> options, and I was still in the process of drafting language to try
> to identify a consensus position

You mean your message of "Sat, 1 Feb 2014 15:34:08 -0500", I take it.

That was after the formal proposal had been made.  So it was open to
you to formally propose an amendment.

In response to that message:
 * Don and Russ (who didn't like L) said that your proposed S was no
   better than L.
 * I (who don't like T) said that your proposed S was like a version
   of T for me.
 * I explicitly asked you (at Sun, 2 Feb 2014 09:34:45 +)
   whether you wanted to delay the vote for redrafting, formally
   propose some version of your S, or something else.

I don't remember seeing a warning in your mail of the 1st of February
that you would be out of touch and that we should not call for a vote.
In the absence of such a respose from you, I didn't get the impression
you were wanting a delay.  Neither I think did anyone else.

The original plan was to call for a vote on Monday.  We delayed this
for two days because of other amendments following comments.

>  I don't think it's reasonable to give a
> 48-hour deadline, during a work week, in the body of one message among
> dozens.  With nothing to call attention to itself, that message sat unread
> in my box among a pile of others until just now, when it's too late.

The whole of the body text was this:

  Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
  > I would be happy to do this.  Anyone object to me prefixing
  >Therefore, for jessie and later releases:
  > before the T/L "Software ..." paragraphs ?

  Following another exchange on IRC I have now done this in git, and I
  hereby propose and accept that amendment (to all versions).  The
  result is as below.

  I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.

  Thanks,
  Ian.

I'm sorry if that wasn't sufficiently clear.  Perhaps I should have
changed the Subject too.

> This is substantially the same as Bdale's earlier CFV, which you objected to
> at the time.

Unlike Bdale's CFV this one:
 - includes the agreed GR rider;
 - had a nonzero discussion period; indeed a discusson period of
   nearly a week, during which any TC member could have ensured that
   any options of their choice were on the ballot by proposing them;
   (those two were my procedural objections); and
 - includes some answer to the coupling question (which was my
   substantive objection).

> Since this vote will almost certainly result in a resolution passing, I
> think I will need to begin drafting a follow-up resolution to address this,
> under 6.1.1.

That's your privilege of course.

Under the circumstances I'm quite prepared to give you a chance to do
the drafting work you want to do.  Particularly since Kurt has
objected too.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21234.49592.42616.958...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:28:41PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> paultag made the request while referencing 6.1.2 as the relevant
> clause.  He isn't involved in d-i.

(Heyya, mgilbert! :) )

I brought it forward under that clause because it made sense at the
time, but I think the TC is free to consider this a matter of technical
policy, it' not unreasonable to peg this as a policy issue.

Anyway, I'm not sure where this lies, and I trust the TC to DTRT.

(Just FTR, I really don't want to hold up voting, I think we've all had
 enough of this and we just need a decision that we can gel around rather
 then keeping this fight up - we're all pretty bloody after this one.)

Much love,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte   |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Thorsten Glaser]

Colin Watson dixit:

>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00106.html
>
>Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
>preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as "efforts to
>resolve [the issue] via consensus".

But is not diversity some sort of consensus too? Let’s just support
all of them…

>I would say that a couple of years
>of vehement debate spread across various mailing lists with developers
>settling into increasingly entrenched positions on all sides is rather
>the opposite of movement towards a consensus position.

Eh… if you put it like that… ok…

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
Support mksh as /bin/sh and RoQA dash NOW!
‣ src:bash (269 (292) bugs: 0 RC, 188 (204) I&N, 81 (88) M&W, 0 F&P)
‣ src:dash (89 (106) bugs: 2 RC, 43 (49) I&N, 44 (55) M&W, 0 F&P)
‣ src:mksh (2 bugs: 0 RC, 0 I&N, 2 M&W, 0 F&P, 1 gift)
http://qa.debian.org/data/bts/graphs/d/dash.png is pretty red, innit?


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1402052241440.6...@herc.mirbsd.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Thorsten Glaser]

Colin Watson dixit:

>("Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap").

I think it is not up to the d-i people to decide on the init system
anyway – especially as not d-i but debootstrap is the canonical way
to install Debian… and debootstrap goes by whatever ftp-masters put
into the override files, and whatever package dependencies and meta
information (such as Essential: yes) there are.

So, “jurisdiction overlaps” seems to fit quite well.

bye,
//mirabilos (waiting on the decision outcome before proposing a GR)
-- 
 Ach, mach doch was du willst, du hast doch eh immer Recht!
 jupp ~/.etc/sig………
 unfaßbar…
 Mit Eszett sogar, unfaßbar!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1402052239190.6...@herc.mirbsd.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 05:08:35PM -0500, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> The big question, I think, is whether section 6.3.6 of the
> constitution has been satisfied.  The project is still clearly working
> on solutions, but at a slower pace than some may desire.  See this for
> a recent example:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00106.html

Various developers certainly continue to work enthusiastically on their
preferred approaches, but that's not really the same as "efforts to
resolve [the issue] via consensus".  I would say that a couple of years
of vehement debate spread across various mailing lists with developers
settling into increasingly entrenched positions on all sides is rather
the opposite of movement towards a consensus position.

No doubt this would be for the secretary to adjudicate, though, under
7.1(3).

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205223823.gb3...@riva.ucam.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> > CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> > with that the options, for all your votes.
> 
> Sorry not to give you an explicit heads-up about this resolution.  (It
> has been proposed in this form for some time now though.)

Please do not assume I have time to read everything.  I don't.  I
actually think I gave advice about this before which you seem to
have ignored.

> Anyway, I think as regards T vs L we are chiefly exercising our power
> to set technical policy.  As regards the default init system we are
> making a decision which has been requested of us by the people
> normally responsible (which would be the d-i maintainersI think).

I would like to point out that this was requested by Paul
Tagliamonte, who as far as I know is not in the d-i team.  I
didn't see anybody from the d-i team request that you make a
decision for them, but I might have missed that.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205223540.ga11...@roeckx.be

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.

I vote:

  1. UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
  2. DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
  3. OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
  4. UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  5. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  6. GR   project should decide via GR
  7. FD   further discussion
  8. OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  9. VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 10. VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205223210.ga28...@riva.ucam.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Colin Watson]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:05:45PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> As regards the default init system we are making a decision which has
> been requested of us by the people normally responsible (which would
> be the d-i maintainersI think).

The original request to us was made by Paul Tagliamonte, who I don't
think is on the d-i team (or if he is I hope he'll forgive me for
observing he isn't very active).

The only people who might reasonably be described as vaguely current
maintainers of parts of d-i whom I can immediately find on a quick scan
of the early parts of this bug are Wouter and myself; Tollef also
contributed a good deal in the past, and I may have missed one or two.
But I don't think any of these people have been acting as d-i
maintainers here.  People like Cyril and Christian, who would be more
obvious candidates for such a label, have not commented on this bug.

I would have thought that this is more clearly handled under 6.1(2)
("Decide any technical matter where Developers' jurisdictions overlap").

-- 
Colin Watson   [cjwat...@debian.org]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205222909.ga3...@riva.ucam.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Michael Gilbert]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
>> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
>> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
>> with that the options, for all your votes.
>
> Sorry not to give you an explicit heads-up about this resolution.  (It
> has been proposed in this form for some time now though.)
>
> Anyway, I think as regards T vs L we are chiefly exercising our power
> to set technical policy.  As regards the default init system we are
> making a decision which has been requested of us by the people
> normally responsible (which would be the d-i maintainersI think).

paultag made the request while referencing 6.1.2 as the relevant
clause.  He isn't involved in d-i.

6.1.2 is supposed to be about resolving "incompatible policies or
stances".  The particular vote proposed here dictates a specific
direction for the project, and doesn't actually do anything about init
system incompatibilities, so its not clear at least to me that 6.1.2
is appropriate.

Best wishes,
Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mo0nfnv807960qbaqjfsuogtcouyk0cxati55kptcn...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Don Armstrong writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >  6.  FD   further discussion
> >  7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> >  8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> >  9.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> >  10. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> 
> I'm puzzled by this ordering.

It's quite simple.  I think the most important consideration is
whether Debian (or some people within Debian) end up forcing people to
use a particular init system.

>  it's not clear to me why one would rank the current state of
> affairs with regards to init system dependencies below FD unless one
> was trying to engage the dropping mechanism of A.6.3.

That's certainly part of it.

> In fact, if this was your intention all along, it's not clear at all to
> me why we had to couple these votes.

You'll notice that my ranking of the init systems differs between the
T options and the L options.

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21234.46745.38568.30...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Michael Gilbert]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
>> > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
>>
>> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
>> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
>>
>> The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.
>
> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> with that the options, for all your votes.

The big question, I think, is whether section 6.3.6 of the
constitution has been satisfied.  The project is still clearly working
on solutions, but at a slower pace than some may desire.  See this for
a recent example:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/02/msg00106.html

Best wishes,
Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=moakepfrsteiovwqt4nnfhpyrh4bgct8mxcgc8oa74...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Kurt Roeckx writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> with that the options, for all your votes.

Sorry not to give you an explicit heads-up about this resolution.  (It
has been proposed in this form for some time now though.)

Anyway, I think as regards T vs L we are chiefly exercising our power
to set technical policy.  As regards the default init system we are
making a decision which has been requested of us by the people
normally responsible (which would be the d-i maintainersI think).

Certainly we do not intend to overrule any maintainer with this
resolution.

Thanks,
Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.46521.188864.913...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:15:00PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140205 21:09]:
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > > > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
> > > 
> > > I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> > > amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
> > > 
> > > The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.
> > 
> > I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> > CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> > with that the options, for all your votes.
> 
> Hm, the same would be valid for Bdales call for votes recently? Or
> what is the difference here?

I'm really asking about all votes.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205215244.ga10...@roeckx.be

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Andreas Barth]

* Kurt Roeckx (k...@roeckx.be) [140205 21:09]:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
> > 
> > I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> > amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
> > 
> > The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.
> 
> I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
> CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
> with that the options, for all your votes.

Hm, the same would be valid for Bdales call for votes recently? Or
what is the difference here?


Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205211500.gw16...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Andreas Barth]

* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [140205 18:45]:
> I think whichever option wins on this ballot, if the TC leaves the
> discussion here it will be a bad outcome for Debian because it leaves
> maintainers without clear guidance about how to avoid fragmenting the
> archive.

What would you like to see changed?



Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205211330.gv16...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:25:59PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >...
> >  8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> >  8.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> >...

> Is this a typo or an intentional equal ranking?

Intentional.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
> 
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
> 
> The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.

I would really like it that you indicated under which power the
CTTE is making decisions, and the majority requirements that go
with that the options, for all your votes.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205200856.ga6...@roeckx.be

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Adrian Bunk]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 09:56:14AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>...
>  8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>  8.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>...

Is this a typo or an intentional equal ranking?

cu
Adrian

-- 

   "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
   "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
   Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205192559.gb22...@bunk.dyndns.info

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> == rider for all versions except GR ==
> 
>This decision is automatically vacated by any contrary General
>Resolution which passes by a simple majority.  In that case the
>General Resolution takes effect and the whole of this TC resolution
>is to be taken as withdrawn by the TC, just as if the TC had
>explicitly withdrawn it by a subsequent TC resolution.

I'm not sure I like the way this is worded, I would have prefered
that you asked me about this before calling for votes.


Kurt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205191925.ga4...@roeckx.be

Bug#727708: OpenRC + Hurd status

[Michael Gilbert]

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just a short message to inform everyone that, with the latest sysvinit
> package from Sid (eg: 2.88dsf-47) and the latest OpenRC package from
> Experimental (eg: 0.12.4+20131230-8), then Hurd just boots fine with
> OpenRC! :)

[...]

> There's nothing more to it: it just works (tm)! :)
>
> Hoping that the status update and our porting efforts are appreciated,
> Cheers,

There has already been a lot of stated appreciation for your openrc
work, and I'm sure there is a lot more unstated.

However, I don't think openrc ever got the respect it deserves.  The
TC is now voting without ever kicking the tires on openrc.  That, I
think, is quite unfortunate and unfair.

Best wishes,
Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mmzg+kwmc4cxyayrc8ectbagyujhtgvawhb0zmjqk3...@mail.gmail.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Andreas Barth]

* Andreas Barth (a...@ayous.org) [140205 18:51]:
> * Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140205 17:39]:
> > Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
> > 
> > I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> > amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
> > 
> > The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.
> 
> I vote for
>  1.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>  2.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>  3.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>  4.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
>  5.  FD   further discussion
>  6.  GR   project should decide via GR
>  7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>  8.  DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>  9.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
> 10.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed


After reading Steves Mail changing to
 1.  FD   further discussion
 2.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 3.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 4.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 5.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 6.  GR   project should decide via GR
 7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 8.  DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 9.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
10.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed

for the moment.


Regards,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205175348.ga29...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.

> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.

> The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.

I vote:

 1.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 2.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 3.  FD   further discussion
 4.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 5.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 6.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 7.  DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 8.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 9.  GR   project should decide via GR

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [140205 17:39]:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.
> 
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
> 
> The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.

I vote for
 1.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 2.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 3.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 4.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 5.  FD   further discussion
 6.  GR   project should decide via GR
 7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 8.  DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 9.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
10.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed


Regards,
Andi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205175137.gu16...@mails.so.argh.org

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Steve Langasek]

Ian,

On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 04:33:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> > I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.

> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.

I am very unhappy to see this CFV in my inbox this morning.  I made it known
that I was not satisfied with the set of ballot options, and I was still in
the process of drafting language to try to identify a consensus position
that the TC would support as a whole.  While we obviously don't want to drag
out the discussion indefinitely, I don't think it's reasonable to give a
48-hour deadline, during a work week, in the body of one message among
dozens.  With nothing to call attention to itself, that message sat unread
in my box among a pile of others until just now, when it's too late.

This is substantially the same as Bdale's earlier CFV, which you objected to
at the time.

I think whichever option wins on this ballot, if the TC leaves the
discussion here it will be a bad outcome for Debian because it leaves
maintainers without clear guidance about how to avoid fragmenting the
archive.

Since this vote will almost certainly result in a resolution passing, I
think I will need to begin drafting a follow-up resolution to address this,
under 6.1.1.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> > I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> > amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.
> 
> I vote:

[...]

>  6.  FD   further discussion
>  7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>  8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>  9.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
>  10. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed

I'm puzzled by this ordering. The wording in the "tight" option was
specifically chosen to be advisory and reflect the current state of
affairs. While I can see preferring to avoid dependencies between
packages and the init system, it's not clear to me why one would rank
the current state of affairs with regards to init system dependencies
below FD unless one was trying to engage the dropping mechanism of
A.6.3.

In fact, if this was your intention all along, it's not clear at all to
me why we had to couple these votes.

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

Given that the odds of a miracle are one in one million, and events
which could be a miracle happen every second, the odds of not seeing a
miracle in a month are less than 8 in 100. Clearly miracles are not
all that miraculous.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205173101.gc5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Don Armstrong]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Options on the ballot:

[...]

I Vote:

1. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
2. DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
3. UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
4. UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
5. OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
6. OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
7. VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
8. VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
9. GR   project should decide via GR
10. FD  further discussion

-- 
Don Armstrong  http://www.donarmstrong.com

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its
freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it
values more, it will lose that, too.
 -- W. Somerset Maugham


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140205171730.gb5...@teltox.donarmstrong.com

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: package to change init systems"):
> I now intend to do the CFV at 16:30 UTC on Wednesday.

I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.

The list of options, and full resolution text, are reproduced below.

Thanks,
Ian.


Options on the ballot:

  DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed

  GR   project should decide via GR

  FD   further discussion

== version D (systemD) ==

   The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should
   be systemd.

== version U (Upstart) ==

   The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should
   be upstart.

== version O (Openrc) ==

   The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should
   be openrc.

== version V (sysVinit) ==

   The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should
   be sysvinit (no change).

== version GR (General Resolution) ==

   The Technical Committee requests that the project decide the
   default init system for jessie by means of General Resolution.

== clarification text for all versions except GR ==

   This decision is limited to selecting a default initsystem for
   jessie.  We expect that Debian will continue to support multiple
   init systems for the foreseeable future; we continue to welcome
   contributions of support for all init systems.

   Therefore, for jessie and later releases:

== dependencies rider version T (Tight coupling) ==

   Software may require a specific init system to be pid 1.

   However, where feasible, software should interoperate with
   all init systems; maintainers are encouraged to accept
   technically sound patches to enable interoperation, even if it
   results in degraded operation while running under the init system
   the patch enables interoperation with.

== dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) ==

   Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require
   a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is
   tolerable.

   Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches
   to enable improved interoperation with various init systems.

== rider for all versions except GR ==

   This decision is automatically vacated by any contrary General
   Resolution which passes by a simple majority.  In that case the
   General Resolution takes effect and the whole of this TC resolution
   is to be taken as withdrawn by the TC, just as if the TC had
   explicitly withdrawn it by a subsequent TC resolution.

-- 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.26613.826545.236...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Jackson writes ("Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> I hereby call for votes on my previously proposed resolution and
> amendments.  All the options require a simple majority.

I vote:

 1.  UL   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 2.  DL   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 3.  OL   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 4.  VL   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init NOT allowed
 5.  GR   project should decide via GR
 6.  FD   further discussion
 7.  UT   upstart default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 8.  OT   openrc default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 9.  VT   sysvinit default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed
 10. DT   systemd default in jessie, requiring specific init is allowed

Ian.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/21234.26772.519377.292...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Bug#727708: OpenRC + Hurd status

[Thomas Goirand]

Hi,

Just a short message to inform everyone that, with the latest sysvinit
package from Sid (eg: 2.88dsf-47) and the latest OpenRC package from
Experimental (eg: 0.12.4+20131230-8), then Hurd just boots fine with
OpenRC! :)

Here's how to do it:

apt-get install initscripts sysv-rc sysvinit \
sysvinit-core sysvinit-utils
update-alternatives --config runsystem

The later command tells hurd to use sysv-rc (otherwise it continues to
use the Hurd specific boot hack thing...). Then just install OpenRC on
top of that:
apt-get install openrc

I'm not sure installing sysv-rc is even needed. Probably installing
OpenRC first, then the other sysvinit packages would work as well.

There's nothing more to it: it just works (tm)! :)

Hoping that the status update and our porting efforts are appreciated,
Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

P.S: My experience with Hurd was ok-ish, though the "console randomly
doesn't come up" bug was really frustrating, especially considering that
Hurd only uses ext2. :(


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52f1f03d.3070...@debian.org