Ian Jackson wrote:
> Marco d'Itri writes ("Re: Legitimate exercise of our constitutional
> decision-making processes [Was, Re: Tentative summary of the amendments]"):
> > ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
> > >I don't want to be having this conversation again in a year's time,
> >
> > And still, I am ready to bet that we will...
>
> If my GR passes we will only have to have this conversation if those
> who are outvoted do not respect the project's collective decision.
>
> If my GR fails I expect a series of bitter rearguard battles over
> individual systemd dependencies.
In other words, if you win, everyone should just shut up and "respect
the project's collective decision", but if you lose, you intend to keep
fighting over every systemd feature you possibly can rather than
"respecting the project's collective decision"?
If you do not expect the vote on this GR and its collective amendments
to actually *end* this interminable issue and let people get back to
work, whichever outcome the project determines, what collective action
*would* have that effect, and could we get that on the ballot?
I tend to agree with Charles Plessy's simple statement that everything
is working just fine, but now I'm starting to wonder if Luca Falavigna's
proposal to *explicitly* say "go ahead and depend on an init system if
needed" would provide more closure on this issue.
- Josh Triplett
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141029221821.GA17894@jtriplet-mobl1
