I was going to write something longer about this, and I may still depending on whether I feel like I have a useful way to present the thoughts that are mingling in my head. But I wanted to at least briefly support Ian's point about a GR possibly being a more appropriate decision-making process if the decision hinges on political rather than technical grounds. I don't want to pass the buck, and there's a lot to be said for a small group of people doing a deep dive into an issue. But if this is more of a political question than a technical evaluation, the TC is in a very awkward place (unelected, basically self-selected, etc.) to be making political decisions for the project.
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > I do think that the proper process is for the TC to make a decision at > this stage. The way I read the constitution and the context is that it > is the TC's job. Evidently you disagree. But there are certainly > things that some TC members are suggesting which would lead me myself to > want to propose or sponsor a GR to overturn it. As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the project to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case. I think we would all be extremely unhappy if the TC voted one way on the default init system and the project then voted a different way by a 60% majority. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87r4842mel....@windlord.stanford.edu
