Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 01:17:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> I think (a) and (b) are pretty non-controversial. (c) and (d) are >> required if we want to deal with new GNOME stuff and anything other >> than systemd probably, and don't seem very hard to either do or >> document. (e), (f) and (g) seem like a fairly straightforward of >> allowing for multiple init systems in Debian. I think something like >> (i) might be a good way of sunsetting tech ctte decisions so if there's >> an actual consensus in future, there's no need to get a pro-forma vote >> from the ctte to make changes in future. YMMV of course. > For my part I think this is generally a good idea, but I have the > impression that at least Russ would be strongly opposed to this because > it's too prescriptive. Probably not much sense in fleshing out such a > resolution if there's not a consensus for it. I think this is all great work to do. I'm just dubious about enforcing it with a technical committee decision. This is the sort of thing that I was expecting to need to do on the Policy front once we have a decision. I think that's the right forum for drilling into the details. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
