Lucas Nussbaum <leader <at> debian.org> writes: > I agree. I don't think that many substantial new arguments are going to > be brought by waiting more on this topic. And it is clear that we have > reached a point where not having clear guidance is severely hurting the > project.
I agree. > I think that it would be a failure of the Debian project if we had to have a GR > about such a technical decision. I think that we need to trust that the > Technical Committee will make the right decision. A GR about this will likely > result in splitting and hurting the project even more. In my perception, it’s the other way round: a CTTE decision will be seen as dictated from a small group, and the possible conflict of interest has been raised, no matter whether it indeed matters in the CTTE decision or not, people are saying it’s fishy. On the other hand, a majority decision (well, one that wins by the Condorcet method) will also disagree with some amount of DDs, but is at least somewhat base-democratic, and every DD will be able to affect the outcome. (Maybe not everyone should, but people who know absolutely nothing about the subject of an election should just not vote then.) So I think that people would rather grudgingly accept a GR outcome but not accept a CTTE decision on something like this that easily. Also, why have people been shying back from GRs like they are a plague? They are a good, and _the_, way to ask the people that make up Debian for their opinion. As someone else said in one of these threads: they don’t eat babies. I think “base democracy” is a much lesser evil than “parlamentarian democracy” (even if both usually end up beating minorities). Finally, I believe strongly that the CTTE request is badly worded, because the decision on whether we require support for more than one (the “default”) init system must be decided either before or at the same time as the default is going to be decided. With a GR, I could express it as ordered preferences (for example, preference for “support them all”, before sysvinit-only, before upstart-only, before NOTA, before systemd-only). This is strong enough that I’d like to see the CTTE outcome that they suggest doing the GR after all (which would _also_ remove the Canonical issue-or-maybe-not from peoples’ minds). (Also, do remember that any decisive outcome other than “support multiple ones including systemd” and “systemd-only” will need to lead to the removal of GNOME from Debian. I won’t miss it, but just saying.) Whatever CTTE and, maybe, the DDs voting in the GR should it be done, do, it’ll change Debian as we know it, I’d say. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20131028t181513-...@post.gmane.org
