Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Charles Plessy]

Le Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 08:39:52PM +0100, Guillem Jover a écrit :
> 
> This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
> for sponsors now.

Hi Guillem,

if the result of the current TC vote is « further discussion », then I will
second your GR.  In the meantime, it is probably better to focus our thoughts
on something else; it is only a matter of days now.

In the past, I have been alternatively on the side of proposing an impopular
GR, and of strongly criticising another GR for its uselessness.  My personal
conclusion is that in doubt, a GR could contain an « rotten tomatoes » option
such as: « this GR should not have been proposed », perhaps with a better
wording.  Can you consider that addition ?  I will take my share of tomatoes if
it turns out that the Project finds the option useful !

Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles


-- 
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/20140127224126.gb8...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Jakub Wilk]

Very much NOT seconded.

I have way more interesting things to do than becoming an init system 
expert; and I would have to become one to be able to vote honestly in 
this GR.


--
Jakub Wilk


--
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/20140127203635.ga9...@jwilk.net

Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Bernd Zeimetz]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi,


On 01/27/2014 08:39 PM, Guillem Jover wrote:
> This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking for
> sponsors now.

please stop wasting people's time and let the TC do their work instead.

Thanks.

- -- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=Fvvl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
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/52e6c266.8060...@bzed.de

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud"  writes:
> > Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> 
> >> I agree.  I think that would be quite bad.  We could explicitly state
> >> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
> >> Resolution on a simple majority.
> 
> > I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change 
> > how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would 
> > certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
> 
> Personally, I think we should amend the constitution to remove this
> requirement, but in the meantime, it's obviously possible for the TC to
> change its own decision.  So, failing any other approach, the TC can
> simply vote to adopt the GR decision as its own decision, which only
> requires a simple majority in the TC (assuming this isn't a matter that
> involves a maintainer override).

I don't see why the TC wouldn't be able to vote for something
again.  Assuming there was a GR about it, this will most likely
only be possible if the result of the GR was FD.

> I'll defer to the secretary on whether it makes sense for the TC to do
> this in advance, or whether to be formally correct we would have to do so
> after the GR had passed.

I guess this is most likely going to depend on how you word it.



Kurt


-- 
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/20140127201432.ga16...@roeckx.be

Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi,

Guillem Jover  writes:
> ,--- DRAFT GR TEXT ---
>
> A General Resolution to select the default init system for Debian.
>
> Option A
[...]
> Option H

If people want to have a GR on the init system, could we please not
entangle two issues in a single vote:

1. Default init system for jessie.
2. Init support in jessie+1.

Also option C "Defer the decision to the Technical Committee" will be
reduntant with another option once the TC makes a decision. I therefore
suggest to wait until they made at least a decision on the default init
on Linux[1].

Ansgar

  [1] Provided they don't explode before that.


-- 
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/8761p5urjx@deep-thought.43-1.org

Re: [Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Paul Tagliamonte]

I'd like to raise the objection that the TC hasn't done their job yet,
and while the TC has done a great job of getting *true* technically
grounded facts out yet, we've not let the process work.

Let the TC do their work. They're coming up on a vote, and they may even
suggest a GR.


This GR is premature.


Cheers,
  Paul


-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte   |   Proud Debian Developer
: :'  : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'`  http://people.debian.org/~paultag
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[Proposal] GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Guillem Jover]

[ M-F-T and Reply-To set to debian-vote@l.d.o. ]

Hi!

This is the revised draft GR proposal (please see below); I'm looking
for sponsors now.

On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 01:01:44 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I think that forcing a decision through the TC at this time was very
> premature and inappropriate, because I don't think enough effort had
> been made to reach consensus (failing §6.3(6)), because the TC seems
> to have been trying to do design work (failing §6.3(5)), and because
> even if they do have the power to decide on this (likely requiring a
> 3:1 majority in any case if they need to override the sysvinit
> maintainers, per §6.1(4)), I feel it's inappropriate for a small group
> of individuals to forcibly decide the global direction for the entire
> project. Such decisions, on issues that are as much technical as
> strategic, political or of a subjective design nature, can have huge
> implications for what contributors or other Debian-based projects
> might have to work on, or stop working on. I feel that such decisions
> must belong to the project at large.
> 
> Moreover, none of the proponents of alternative init system seem
> to have expended much energy in seeking wide deployment of their
> solutions within Debian (or, with the exception of upstart, even
> updating the policy manual) before this binding ruling was sought.
> If they had done so, Debian could follow its usual organic and
> decentralized process, allowing the best solution for the project
> as a whole to emerge naturally through the consensus formed from the
> experience of these deployments. Instead, we have seen giant flamewars
> seemingly based largely on speculation, which have only made
> the situation worse by increasing acrimony within the project,
> with further polarization and antagonization between the different
> factions. IMO, forcing this issue via a small committee will not
> improve this in any way.
> 
> 
> In general, I've been quite unhappy with the excessive invocation of
> the TC recently, with developers seeming to view this as a first,
> rather than absolute last, resort. I think it's pernicious for the
> project to instill a regime of threats and force, that will almost
> always alienate at least one side of a dispute. It clearly denotes
> a dysfunctional project. It has even crossed my mind many times now, to
> propose a GR for each issue concerning project direction (if not all)
> escalated to the TC, or even propose a constitutional change to remove
> the TC's powers of coercion; restricting its rulings to be strictly
> advisory and non-binding, though I'm not sure this option would get
> wide traction amongst developers, if at all.
> 
> 
> I've been sitting back and trying to see the extent to which other
> developers support the view that the TC should not be deciding on
> issues of project direction; unfortunately, canvassing support from
> mailing lists is difficult, and handling a GR is quite a large
> undertaking, requiring a lot of time and energy, that others might
> not want or be able to invest, but would gladly get behind.
> 
> 
> So, with much reluctance and disappointment, I've finally caved and am
> considering proposing the following GR draft. Unfortunately nothing has
> changed up to this point; the TC is not backing off. I think the draft
> text should cover most of the options people seem to have expressed
> support for up to now.
> 
> Note that it's not entirely clear how a _pending_ resolution by the
> TC would interact with a GR on the same, so I'd like input from the
> secretary before seeking support from sponsors, although to be honest
> I don't expect any problems here.

As mentioned in the thread, if there's any issue with the above, the
secretary can point it out during the discussion period if this gets
support from enough sponsors.

The two main changes are the addition of the explicit TC option,
and the rewording of option B to not mention a GR explicitly, and to
just postpone revisiting that decision to a later time. I chose that
time to let some breathing after the jessie release, and because it's
(usually) 1/3 of the non-frozen release time, so it would give enough
room to deploy any possible changes before jessie+1. Attached is a
diff against the original GR draft, for your convenience.


,--- DRAFT GR TEXT ---

A General Resolution to select the default init system for Debian.

Option A

* Reinforce sysvinit and sysv-rc as the default init system.
  - the level of support for other init systems would remain unchanged;
as with non-release architectures, they would be supported to the
extent that their backers would be willing to expend their energy.

Option B

* Changing the default init system is ultimately desirable, but
  premature at this point in time.
  - supporters of other init systems should continue their efforts
towards full adoption by Debian through guidance in the policy
manual, natural formation of consensus, and wider support through

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:21:41AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Didier 'OdyX' Raboud"  writes:
> > Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> 
> >> I agree.  I think that would be quite bad.  We could explicitly state
> >> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
> >> Resolution on a simple majority.
> 
> > I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change 
> > how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would 
> > certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
> 
> Personally, I think we should amend the constitution to remove this
> requirement, but in the meantime, it's obviously possible for the TC to
> change its own decision.  So, failing any other approach, the TC can
> simply vote to adopt the GR decision as its own decision, which only
> requires a simple majority in the TC (assuming this isn't a matter that
> involves a maintainer override).
> 

Indeed, or at least to allow this to happen if tech-ctte wishes it.

> I'll defer to the secretary on whether it makes sense for the TC to do
> this in advance, or whether to be formally correct we would have to do so
> after the GR had passed.
> 

So will I, but I believe it should be sufficiently clear at the moment
to the developer body at large where the -ctte's view on this matter is.

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Russ Allbery]

"Didier 'OdyX' Raboud"  writes:
> Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :

>> I agree.  I think that would be quite bad.  We could explicitly state
>> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
>> Resolution on a simple majority.

> I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change 
> how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would 
> certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).

Personally, I think we should amend the constitution to remove this
requirement, but in the meantime, it's obviously possible for the TC to
change its own decision.  So, failing any other approach, the TC can
simply vote to adopt the GR decision as its own decision, which only
requires a simple majority in the TC (assuming this isn't a matter that
involves a maintainer override).

I'll defer to the secretary on whether it makes sense for the TC to do
this in advance, or whether to be formally correct we would have to do so
after the GR had passed.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


--
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/87ha8pl4re@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Ian Jackson]

Neil McGovern writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
> > > this?
> > 
> > You mean my TC resolution draft.
> 
> Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.

Oh.  I haven't done anything about that for a while of course.  The
init system thing has been keeping us busy.

> Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
> than me :)

OK, thanks.

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/21222.38854.689978.94...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 05:11:17PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
> > this?
> 
> You mean my TC resolution draft.

Nope, I meant your supermajorty etc draft.

Snipping the rest, as that seems to be something for tech-ctte, rather
than me :)

Neil


-- 
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/20140127172208.gm8...@halon.org.uk

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Ian Jackson]

Neil McGovern writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian"):
> That would certainly seem to be the case, but it would be illogical for
> a group who is happy to be overridden with a lower requirement to be
> prevented from doing so!

Quite.

I think it's perfectly possible for a TC resolution to make its
meaning dependent on future facts.  "If X and Y, then A, otherwise B".
It is also perfectly possible for a TC resolution to retract or modify
a previous TC resolution.  So all that's needed is for the TC to say
"all of our init system resolutions should be treated as withdrawn if
contradicted by a simple majority in a GR".

> Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
> this?

You mean my TC resolution draft.  Well, if you look at the debian-ctte
list you will see that Bdale has decided to take matters into his own
hands.  He has proposed his own version of an init system resolution
which lacks the GR override clause, without giving anyone a chance to
comment on the text before calling for a vote.

(I'm pretty cross with Bdale about that.  Also he failed to send his
messages to the bug, but only send them to the debian-ctte list.)

I have proposed a separate TC resolution to try to address this, but
it's obviously less clear.

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/21222.37685.301579.210...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change 
> how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would 
> certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).
> 

That would certainly seem to be the case, but it would be illogical for
a group who is happy to be overridden with a lower requirement to be
prevented from doing so!

In practical terms, if the tech-ctte was so minded, they could use some
of the proceedures in 4.2.2 to essentially achieve this outcome.

Ian - any thoughts on if your tech-ctte constitution GR could address
this?

Neil
-- 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for Debian

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le dimanche, 19 janvier 2014, 12.39:01 Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Russ Allbery writes ("Re: GR: Selecting the default init system for 
Debian"):
> > As a TC member, I dislike the supermajority requirement for the
> > project to overturn a TC decision by GR, particularly in this case.
> >  I think we would all be extremely unhappy if the TC voted one way
> > on the default init system and the project then voted a different
> > way by a 60% majority.
> 
> I agree.  I think that would be quite bad.  We could explicitly state
> in our TC resolution that the TC decision can be vacated by General
> Resolution on a simple majority.

I don't think our constitution allows a resolution of the TC to change 
how §4.1.4 has to be interpreted for a GR overriding it[0]. It would 
certainly need to be checked with the secretary (CC'ed, just in case).

Cheers,
OdyX

[0] If §4.1.4 stood with something along the lines of "unless the TC 
explicitly lowered that requirement", that would be different, of 
course.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.