Guillem Jover writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 12:04:17 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > My reasons are quite different to yours: to summarise, it seems to me
> > that the init system decision involves political questions as well as
> > technical ones.
>
> Actually, no, part of my reasons include several of the ones you list,
> as I tried to imply when writting “Such decisions, on issues that are
> as much technical as strategic, political or of a subjective design
> nature,”. I should probably have been more explicit (seems to be a
> common fault of mine :/ ), but didn't want to go into specific details
> for those, I guess that was a mistake. :)
Well of course the more we get into the details of the politics the
more we risk unpleasantness. :-/.
> For example with strategic, I was thinking about things like:
Thanks for your examples. Yes, I agree that these are important
questions.
> > However, I think your option (B) needs further reconsideration. I
> > doubt the project will have the appetite for two GRs on this topic.
>
> Well, I'd rather not be spending time in the current GR either, I'd
> prefer to be doing something else instead, to be honest. But regarding
> option B, I'd also very strongly prefer if no other GR would appear,
> but I know that some people are eager to get a decision made and be
> done with it (even if it would get postponed now), and will not want
> to wait either, so that was more of a compromise than anything else.
Perhaps there are options that make sense but that don't involve
another GR. In practice I think few people would vote for a second GR
so at the very least you might consider alternatives.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/21212.22453.536649.647...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
