Ian Jackson wrote:
- -8<-
Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
PRINCIPLES
1. We wish to continue to support multiple init systems for the
foreseeable future. And we want to improve our systemd support.
We are disappointed that this has had to involve another
Sam Hartman writes:
> Choice hartmans3: Focus on systemd for Init System and Other Facilities
>
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
> the following statement describing our current position on Init
> systems, Init system diversity, and the use of systemd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd"):
> It's in: g...@salsa.debian.org:webmaster-team/webwml.git
Thanks. Haven't looked at that yet but...
> Jean-Pierre Giraud applied this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 02:02:03PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:19:11PM +, James Clarke wrote:
> >
> > Seconded (with and without my kFreeBSD hat).
>
> That email wasn't signed.
Oops, update broke my mail client's GPG
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 05:19:11PM +, James Clarke wrote:
>
> Seconded (with and without my kFreeBSD hat).
That email wasn't signed.
Kurt
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 02:41:19PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
> systemd"):
> > The update should be available on the website now.
>
> Hi, thanks. I looked at the version here
>
>
> On 16 Nov 2019, at 18:18, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. We wish to
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd"):
> The update should be available on the website now.
Hi, thanks. I looked at the version here
https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002
and it is missing some of the paragraph br
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1.
[2019-11-16 18:18] Ian Jackson
> - -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. We wish to continue to support multiple init systems for the
>foreseeable future. And we want to improve our systemd support.
>We are disappointed that this has
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 06:29:33PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
> systemd"):
> > On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > > Seconded.
> >
> >
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd"):
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> > Seconded.
>
> So that was the 5th second, and I've pushed that to the webiste.
>
> Note that it's s
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:58:35AM +, Dmitry Bogatov wrote:
> Seconded.
So that was the 5th second, and I've pushed that to the webiste.
Note that it's still the original proposal, Ian doesn't seem to
have accepted Russ's change yet.
Kurt
I am in fact going to accept Russ's amendment clarifying division of
responsibility.
I'm finding the amendment easy to accept, although I just need to update
my working copy and repost. I'm finding replying to Scott's original
message is taking a bit of wordsmithing.
[2019-11-16 18:18] Ian Jackson
> - -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. We wish to continue to support multiple init systems for the
>foreseeable future. And we want to improve our systemd support.
>We are disappointed that this
> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx writes:
Kurt> But as you pointed out, I'm happy to interprete this as using
Kurt> the 4.1.3 powers of the policy editors and release team, nor
Kurt> do I really see a difference between 4.1.3 and 4.1.5.
The big difference between 4.1.3 and 4.1.5 is that
Hi,
On 2019/11/16 20:18, Ian Jackson wrote:> I hereby formally propose the
following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
I too second the below quoted amendment.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
>
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. We wish to continue to support multiple init
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 09:01:45PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I also don't think it is appropriate to consider something overriding a
> > delegate unless it is overiding a specific decision of a delegate.
>
> For the record, it's not possible in this case to override a decision of
> the
Sam Hartman writes:
> I have high confidence that a decision in this space will give the
> policy editors the tools they need to break the consensus deadlock
> without having to resort to overriding them or setting policy as a
> project. That is, in this case, a non-binding statement that we
Hello,
On Sat 16 Nov 2019 at 06:18PM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
I too second the below quoted amendment. Thank you, Ian.
> - -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd
Kurt Roeckx writes:
> Even though it always says it's using 4.1.5, I have a hard time seeing
> why I shouldn't also put them under 4.1.4 (and 4.1.3). As currently
> written, I will most likely interprete them as using the power of 4.1.4,
> and so require a 2:1 majority.
Here's my reasoning for
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Choice hartmans1: Affirm Init Diversity
>
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues
> the following statement describing our current position on Init
> systems, Init system diversity, and the use of
I propose the following amendment to clarify the division of
responsibilities problem that Scott noticed. I'm not seeking seconds
since I suspect Sam will accept this amendment.
Below each quoted sentence is the proposed replacement.
(The terminology in use in Policy is incredibly awkward, and
Ian Jackson writes:
> I hereby formally propose the following amendent (for my reference,
> 42471fd). Replace the entire text, with the text below.
I second the below quoted amendment.
> -8<-
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> PRINCIPLES
> 1. We wish to
On Sat, Nov 16, 2019 at 11:35:27AM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> The secretary requested that I have each choice be self-contained.
> So I'm folding the header into each choice.
>
> The line of dashes separates each choice.
> I formally propose these general resolution options.
Can you please
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Sam Hartman writes ("Re-Proposing: General Resolution on Init Systems and
systemd"):
> The line of dashes separates each choice.
> I formally propose these general resolution options.
I hereby formally propose the following
27 matches
Mail list logo
