Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Bug#727708: Call for votes on init system resolution"):
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 06:53:56PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Yes. What did you think of my proposal earlier ? If you don't think
> > that has the right effect, please suggest something else.
>
> Yes, I think that should be fine.
Oh good.
> If the text explicitly says that it is a non-binding position
> statement issued under s4.1.5 of the Constitution, would that suffice ?
For belt and braces, let's do this too.
So for the avoidance of doubt, we would put this into the TC
resolution:
If the project passes by a General Resolution, a "position statement
about issues of the day", on the subject of init systems, the views
expressed in that position statement entirely replace the substance
of this TC resolution; the TC hereby adopts any such position
statement as its own decision.
Such a position statement could, for example, use these words:
The Project requests (as a position statement under s4.1.5 of the
Constitution) that the TC reconsider, and requests that the TC
would instead decide as follows:
This would replace the "GR rider" part in all the substantive TC
ballot options.
So let us suppose that the TC voted for VT (in my existing scheme)
with that rider, a GR to pseudo-override it to exactly the
previously-seen UL proposal would look like this:
The Project requests (as a position statement under s4.1.5 of the
Constitution) that the TC reconsider, and requests that the TC
would instead decide as follows:
The default init system for Linux architectures in jessie should
be upstart.
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:
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.
As I understand you, you are saying that such a GR text would require
a 1:1 majority, and would be automatically effective by virtue of the
previous TC decision.
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/21235.56623.470694.355...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
