Hi,
Here is a new draft ballot:
Voting period starts 2019-12-07 00:00:00 UTC
Votes must be received by 2019-12-27 23:59:59 UTC
The following ballot is for voting on init systems and systemd
This vote is being conducted as required by the Debian Constitution.
You may see the cons
Hi,
On 2019/12/05 13:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
>> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
>> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
>> website version. I haven't had time to check that.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt, you can make the HTML for this as follows:
> * c&p the HTML from proposal D
> * Adding the new title
> * Replacing the PRINCIPLES section by c&p the text
> from G, and numbering the paragraphs as clauses
> * Renumberin
Hello,
Since the secretary has indicated he is going to put this on the ballot,
I too second it.
On Thu 05 Dec 2019 at 11:59AM +00, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
> b
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 07:07:03PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> > [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> > [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> > [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> > [ ] Choice 4: Support n
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 11:59:36AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
>
> I hereby propose it and hope to have it on the ballot, given that
> there are enough seconds. I do *not* intend to replace the existing
> proposal D
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Draft ballot"):
> [ ] Choice 1: Focus on systemd
> [ ] Choice 2: Systemd but we support exploring alternatives
> [ ] Choice 3: Support for multiple init systems is Important
> [ ] Choice 4: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
> [ ] Choice 5: Support
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E [and 1 more
messages]"):
> Since I didn't see anybody complain about this, I will put it on
> the ballot. I will try to update the website and ballot later this
> evening.
Thanks. I think G+D comes between D and E in the ordering.
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 09:10:00AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
>
> > Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> > could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> > start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to inter
Ian Jackson writes:
> Kurt, do you think there are procedural steps that Sam could take or
> could have taken, which would enable it to be on the ballot, and still
> start the vote this weekend ? If so, are you able to interpret Sam's
> mail as taking those steps ?
For the record, I also suppor
On Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:59:36 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Here is the formal version of this proposal. (My previous mail wasn't
> signed.)
Thank you.
> Title: Support portability, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that
>
Hi,
On 05/12/2019 15:21, Sam Hartman wrote:
"Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Sam Hartman writes:
>> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the
>> G+D proposal weakens option G alone.
>>
>> [1]:
>>
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Do I assume correctly, therefore, that you now agree that
Matthew> G+D should be on the ballot?
I'm not going to stand in the way.
I think everything I wrote in my message is still true, including that I
think the secretary is in a bet
> "Matthew" == Matthew Vernon writes:
Matthew> Sam Hartman writes:
>> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the
>> G+D proposal weakens option G alone.
>>
>> [1]:
>>
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
Sam Hartman writes:
> I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the G+D
> proposal weakens option G alone.
>
> [1]:
>
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
Later in that thread (
Message-ID: <20191205121800.ga75...@thunder.hadron
Hi,
On Thu, Dec 05, 2019 at 08:32:28AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> At minimum, "X is the default" means "you will get X if you don't take
> any action to avoid doing so". All definitions I can think of seem to
> share that baseline.
> At something like maximum, "X is the default" could be read
I read [1], Guillem's message talking about how he believes the G+D
proposal weakens option G alone.
[1]:
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20191205001617.ga11...@gaara.hadrons.org
This puts us into a complicated situation.
* If G+D had been proposed and sponsored before the CFV, it's
On 2019-12-05 at 04:34, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
>
>> Reframing -
>>
>> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I
>> mean yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system,
>> but we do have other com
> "Michael" == Michael Lustfield writes:
Michael> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on
Michael> poor behavior by some individuals instead of being based on
Michael> the active efforts of those trying to improve the end
Michael> result (
The CFV was not pos
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > That is an unfortunate effect, yes. I mean, my opinion is (as you
> > know) that G _is_ missing something. But it would be much better if
> > you as the proposer of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Sam has decided to cut short this process. We started this public
> discussion less than a month ago. This is very short.
I still think the timeline is too abbreviated but we
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 10:53:33 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> > On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
> >
> > Hmm, I've not checked the
Kurt Roeckx writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> If there is a consensus that new options can still be added, I
> will consider adding them. As long as I don't sent out the call
> for votes, things can be changed. But it currently seems unlikely to
> me, so I'm proceeding in th
Jonathan Carter writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ...
> > 7. Software is not to be considered to be designed by upstream to work
> >exclusively with systemd merely because upstream does not provide,
> >and/or will not accept,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> Here is what I think Guillem's plus mine looks like.
>
> NB that I may have reintroduced typos which have been fixed on the
> website version. I haven't had time to check that.
Gunnar Wolf writes ("Re: Proposal to overturn init systems premature GR"):
> Gunnar Wolf dijo [Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 11:40:15AM -0600]:
> > Ian, please don't.
>
> Just to get this off my head - I am sorry for the tone used in my own
> mail I'm replying to. While I do stand by not wanting this propo
Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Last minute cominbations G+D and/or G+E"):
> On Wed, 2019-12-04 at 17:11:49 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I do not intend either of these proposals to replace E or D, nor G.
>
> Hmm, I've not checked the actual differences between the combined and
> the individual option
Hi,
On 2019/12/04 19:14, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
>and integrates different software that provides similar or equivalent
>fun
Hi,
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019, Guillem Jover wrote:
> Reframing
> -
>
> Why have init systems become such a contentions and toxic issue? I mean
> yeah, it potentially integrates with many parts of the system, but we do
> have other components in the distribution with multiple or non-portable
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Ian Jackson writes:
> -8<-
>
> Title: Support non-systemd systems, without blocking progress
>
> PRINCIPLES
>
> 1. The Debian project reaffirms its commitment to be the glue that binds
>and integrates different software that provides similar or
Michael Lustfield writes:
> I find it unfortunate that the call to vote was based on poor behavior by
> some individuals instead of being based on the active efforts of those trying
> to
> improve the end result (following the vote). I do not believe the latter
> should
> be punished for behavior
31 matches
Mail list logo
