Hi,
I've spent some time (re-)reading all proposals. Here are various
comments:
Ordering
========
In order to save voters' time by making it possible to read proposals in
a more sensible order, I think they should be re-ordered as:
Proposal E / Choice 5: Support for multiple init systems is Required
Proposal D / Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
Proposal A / Choice 1: Support for multiple init systems is Important
Proposal B / Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
Proposal C / Choice 3: Focus on systemd for init system and other facilities
(or the reverse, which has the advantage of only permutating between
Sam's proposals, which might be more procedurally acceptable)
Typos
=====
In Proposal A:
modification of policy => *M*odification
In Proposal D:
I don't understand this part:
> 9. systemd provides a variety of facilities besides daemon startup.
> For example, creating system users or temporary directories. Current
> Debian approaches are often based on debhelper scripts.
>
> In general more declarative approaches are better. Where
>
> - systemd provides such facility
> - a specification of the facility (or suitable subset) exists
> - the facility is better than the other approaches available in Debian, for
> example by being more declarative
> - it is reasonable to expect developers of non-systemd systems including
> non-Linux systems to implement it
> - including consideration of the amount of work involved
>
> the facility should be documented in Debian Policy (by textual incorporation,
> not by reference to an external document).
I don't understand the role of the last item ("including consideration
of the amount of work involved") and it doesn't sound grammatically
correct to me. The first four items are formulated as criterias, but not
that one. Should it be rewritten as, for example: "the amount of work
involved in implementing alternate implementations is reasonable"?
Concern about length of proposal D
==================================
I am a bit concerned about the length of proposal D, and the fact that
it is both very detailed and very vague.
For example, it raises a (probably valid) concern about
"non-init-related [declarative] systemd facilities", but:
1/ it mixes it with an argument that declarative facilities are better.
Well, maybe I can agree with that. I'm not sure it's something
the project needs to issue a statement on through a GR.
2/ It says:
> If policy consensus cannot be reached on such a facility, the
> Technical Committee should decide based on the project's wishes
> as expressed in this GR.
Well, given that some of the criterias are not super-clear (see above),
it's likely that policy consensus will be hard to reach. Then the TC is
left with deciding based on the project's wishes as expressed in this
GR. But assuming that proposal D wins, where is that project's wish on
non-init-related declarative systemd facilities expressed?
I'm also not sure about the part about "being excellent to each other".
How does this part of this GR interact with the CoC? Is it expected that
the CoC includes special cases about init systems if this proposal wins?
For those reasons, I am not sure if I will rank proposal D above FD. I
would very much prefer if it were compressed to a proposal of about the
same length as proposals B or C.
- Lucas
