Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
> Here is the text: > > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome = > of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. Cheers, Moritz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Hi, On Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, Sam Hartman wrote: > my response is "so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in > their way." > I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they > disagree over whether all the questions have been answered. I agree. I've also been thinking whether I find the distinction pointed out by Lucas to be so important as to offer another amendment if Charly doesnt want to change his... I'd definitly prefer to have this statement once on the ballot than twice. So, Charles? cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
> "Charles" == Charles Plessy writes: Charles> Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions. Even if it Charles> can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of Charles> the amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say Charles> that a GR is unwelcome, and b) to reduce as much as Charles> possible the “attack surface” on the voted text in case Charles> some people want to use it to continue arguing after the Charles> vote. I've already seconded this and will vote for it. I do think I'd feel slightly more comfortable with a statement that the existing processing were working adequately than a statement that the question has already been answered. See, I'm not actually sure that all the questions surrounding init systems have been answered. I think people are busy doing the work to answer them though and nothing needs project-level intervention. Lucas's analysis is correct; there are questions that would be answered by this GR that seem to be answered no where else formally yet. my response is "so what? People are doing their jobs, let's not get in their way." I'd rather this amendment not push people away simply because they disagree over whether all the questions have been answered. -- 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/014933c4b6eb-dafbeaaf-d917-447f-9a2d-dd68ba85fa95-000...@email.amazonses.com
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. Kind regards Philipp Kern signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
Thanks Anthony and Lucas for your suggestions. Even if it can be improved, I am reluctant to change the wording of the amendement, given that the whole point is a) to say that a GR is unwelcome, and b) to reduce as much as possible the “attack surface” on the voted text in case some people want to use it to continue arguing after the vote. The discussion in this GR falls short of concrete examples of a) what is wrong in Jessie, b) how it should be corrected and c), why would a GR be needed. The burden of the proof is on the side that asks for a GR, not the reverse. If there is not concrete problem to solve, there should be no vote. I consider this GR strongly anti-democratic and anti-doocratic. The different amendements require digging in long, noisy threads to assess what is the common understanding of them (and thanks Lucas for your summary, but it did not help me to have a clear picture of what would be the most likely concrete consequence (that is, not “what the rules are”, but “how the system runs“) of voting each amendement). This makes the GR anti-democratic since the safest choice becomes to vote by the names of who proposed and seconded an amendement rather than by the contents of the amendement itself. And it is anti-doocratic since it lays general principles for the Jessie + 1 release without even giving a chance for the people who will do the work to prepare this release in a brilliant way that does not require the project to constrain their choices. [I can not beleive I spent an hour writing this short text; I hope it is my last email related to this GR.] Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20141021143145.ga21...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
On 20/10/14 at 08:06 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > > > > > --- > > > > > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing > > > General > > > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the > > > outcome of > > > the vote. > > > > > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the > > > question > > > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > > > > > --- > > > > I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has > > already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals > > add policy on something that isn't currently covered by the Debian Policy > > or by TC decisions. > > > > Alternatively, your resolution could state that the current de-facto > > policy of supporting both systemd and sysvinit (sometimes through > > systemd-shim) should be kept for Debian jessie, and that deciding > > on policy beyond jessie is premature at this point. > > Hi Lucas, > > being more precise would somehow defeat the point of stating that no GR is > needed, because the way the solution would be expressed, with its > imperfections, would then become binding. > > This said, let me clarify my understanding of the current situation. > > - Pepole running GNOME and desktops needing features not found in >other init systems will be migrated to systemd during update. I don't think that's correct. What to do during upgrades is still being discussed by the TC in #765803, and none of the amendments in the current GR discuss this. Also, thanks to the work on systemd-shim, it should be possible to upgrade from wheezy+GNOME with sysvinit to jessie+GNOME with sysvinit and systemd-shim. (I just tried, and the dist-upgrade currently fails to upgrade gnome, but it seems unrelated to init systems issues) > - Whether other people will be migrated or invited to migrate is in >the hands of the release team, who decides which packages are >part of Jessie or not. Well, it's true that the release team can control which packages are fit for integration into testing. But I don't think that the release team wants to use (abuse?) that to define our technical policy on init systems... > The techincal commttee has already given the general direction: we change the > default init system. In my opinion, this general direction is how the > “question” is resolved. Current decisions on which package depend on what, > etc, stem from that decision. As of today I do not think that we need the > technical comittee, the Policy or a GR to further constrain the work of the > release team. Replacing the init system is a major change, and obviously some > people who used expert skills to set up their system may need their expertise > to upgrade it. This, also, is a logical consequence of the TC's decision, and > I trust the various package maintainers that they are doing their best to make > the transition as easy as possible. TTBOMK, the various TC decisions related to this matter are: #727708 - https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/02/msg5.html default init system on Linux is systemd https://lists.debian.org/878usv4ruj@rover.gag.com no decision on whether software may require specific init systems https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2014/08/msg1.html (which I understand as technical advice, and Russ said the same thing in <87fvei8t2z@hope.eyrie.org>) For the record, the TC expects maintainers to continue to support the multiple available init systems in Debian. I don't think that this fully covers all the questions raised in the various amendments to this GR. I would very much prefer if your proposal said something such as: Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that most of the questions have already been resolved. Resolving the remaining questions via a General Resolution is premature at this time. (I would vote the above first -- I'm unsure about your proposal) Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The ???no GR, please??? amendement.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 08:06:28AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a ??crit : > > I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has > > already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals > > add policy on something that isn't currently covered by the Debian Policy > > or by TC decisions. > being more precise would somehow defeat the point of stating that no GR is > needed, because the way the solution would be expressed, with its > imperfections, would then become binding. Maybe instead of: } Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the } question has already been resolved and thus does not require a General } Resolution. you could say something like: } Policy on how packages should integrate into the init system is set } by the policy team, though disputes may be escalated to the technical } committee as usual. As these procedures have not been exhausted, } this issue does not require a GR at this time. } } At the time of this GR, current policy on init system integration can } be found in Debian Policy, section 9.3, 9.4, and 9.11, and development } guidelines can be found at: }https://wiki.debian.org/systemd/Packaging (Those are all the references I could find with a quick search. Honestly, it seems remarkably inadequate... People spending too much time organising votes to actually document how secondary init systems should work?) FWIW, I think being non-specific about what the deal with systemd vs sysvinit vs runit vs upstart vs whatever is a bug (both here and in -policy too). I think that's stopping me from adding a (redundant) "seconded!", though I think this is still my preferred option. Cheers, aj -- 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/20141021084759.gb11...@master.debian.org
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
> "Joey" == Joey Hess writes: Joey> Charles Plessy wrote: >> --- >> >> The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when >> proposing General Resolutions, as the GR process may be >> disruptive regardless of the outcome of the vote. >> >> Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that >> the question has already been resolved and thus does not require >> a General Resolution. >> >> --- Joey> Seconded. Seconded!@!! thanks! pgppbTuOE7Vsm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Anyway, whichever the name I call for seconds (or comments: if this proposed > amendment is considered harmful, let me know). > Received (well, found in the middle of a mail thread, thanks for changing the subject though :P) and valid. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Charles Plessy wrote: > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Here is the text: > > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. Deciding technical policy via GR strikes me as awkward. I'd rather see the maintainers in question attempt to resolve this. 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
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Charles Plessy (2014-10-19): > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Charles Plessy writes: > Here is the text: > > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. -- |8] pgpzyCI9JnbfH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 11:29:21PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Received and valid. I'll add it to the vote page once it receives sufficient seconds. Neil -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
On Sun, 19 Oct 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- Seconded. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Le dimanche, 19 octobre 2014, 23.29:21 Charles Plessy a écrit : > -- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing > General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless > of the outcome of the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the > question has already been resolved and thus does not require a > General Resolution. > > -- Seconded, for much the same reasons as Holger's. Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Hi, On Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2014, Charles Plessy wrote: > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing > General Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the > outcome of the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- seconded. (After some thinking I still think it's useful to also have this option on the ballot. I don't expect it to win, but I surely hope it will win against Ian's proposal - and by far even! ;-) cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Le Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 05:01:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit : > > > > --- > > > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome > > of > > the vote. > > > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > > > --- > > I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has > already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals > add policy on something that isn't currently covered by the Debian Policy > or by TC decisions. > > Alternatively, your resolution could state that the current de-facto > policy of supporting both systemd and sysvinit (sometimes through > systemd-shim) should be kept for Debian jessie, and that deciding > on policy beyond jessie is premature at this point. Hi Lucas, being more precise would somehow defeat the point of stating that no GR is needed, because the way the solution would be expressed, with its imperfections, would then become binding. This said, let me clarify my understanding of the current situation. - Pepole running GNOME and desktops needing features not found in other init systems will be migrated to systemd during update. - Whether other people will be migrated or invited to migrate is in the hands of the release team, who decides which packages are part of Jessie or not. The techincal commttee has already given the general direction: we change the default init system. In my opinion, this general direction is how the “question” is resolved. Current decisions on which package depend on what, etc, stem from that decision. As of today I do not think that we need the technical comittee, the Policy or a GR to further constrain the work of the release team. Replacing the init system is a major change, and obviously some people who used expert skills to set up their system may need their expertise to upgrade it. This, also, is a logical consequence of the TC's decision, and I trust the various package maintainers that they are doing their best to make the transition as easy as possible. Regarding what is proposed, it is actually unclear. The consequence of accepting the main proposal may range anywhere between “do nothing special” and “harrass the GNOME and systemd maintainers until they quit”. I am sure that this is not Ian's goal, but I am not sure he is in position to prevent this to happen. In the case of your proposal, I appreciate your effort to cool down the situation and you are definitely in your role to do so, but if the whole point is that after voting it, nothing changes except that people stop complaining, then I would like to introduce a ballot option that focuses on that point: telling people who do not have a clear and realistic action plan (that is, no wishful thinking) to stop complaining. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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/20141019230628.GA4618@aqwa.igloo
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Hi, Charles Plessy: > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- > Seconded. -- -- Matthias Urlichs signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Call for seconds] The “no GR, please“ amendement.
Hi Charles, On 19/10/14 at 23:29 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 05:31:28PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs a écrit : > > > > Charles Plessy: > > > This is why I am proposing this amendement, to say: “this GR was a bad > > > idea, > > > please do not do it again”. > > > > > I would not regard it as an amendment, but as a separate alternative option > > on the ballot. If I were you, I'd add another paragraph, like > > > > >> Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the > > >> question > > >> has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > > > and then formally ask for seconds. > > Thanks again for the good suggestion. > > Regarding the terminology, in my understanding, alternative options on the > same > ballot are amendments, even if they fully replace the original proposition. > > Anyway, whichever the name I call for seconds (or comments: if this proposed > amendment is considered harmful, let me know). > > Here is the text: > > --- > > The Debian project asks its members to be considerate when proposing General > Resolutions, as the GR process may be disruptive regardless of the outcome of > the vote. > > Regarding the subject of this ballot, the Project affirms that the question > has already been resolved and thus does not require a General Resolution. > > --- I think that it would be very helpful to describe how "the question has already been resolved". My understanding is that the various proposals add policy on something that isn't currently covered by the Debian Policy or by TC decisions. Alternatively, your resolution could state that the current de-facto policy of supporting both systemd and sysvinit (sometimes through systemd-shim) should be kept for Debian jessie, and that deciding on policy beyond jessie is premature at this point. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
