Michael Banck <mba...@debian.org> writes: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 07:31:11PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> This probably has been floating around for some time. IMO, enough time >> so that we start to discuss $subject. > Why is this a GR and not a policy proposal? Policy changes require strong consensus, and it's very unlikely that we have that sort of strong consensus here. Put another way, Policy is already behind on documenting things that we've all already agreed about but that need some time and attention to document properly (stuff like triggers, good practices for systemd units, multi-arch, and so forth). For things like this that will be controversial (see also dropping our support level for alternate init systems, which comes up periodically), we're going to ask the project to find some other decision-making process. For a proposal like this, I think a GR may be the best decision-making process we have. (This shouldn't be taken as an opinion either way on whether this proposal specifically should be adopted.) If we do want to change our historic maintainer-driven free-for-all and start mandating specific tools, that's a sufficiently large *cultural* change in the process that, unless we can reach some sort of guided consensus like we did with dh (and I think this is more controversial and is also a much stronger statement than we arrived at with dh), having everyone vote on it is probably the right move. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
