The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 17, 2014 17:58 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
In reply to: The Debian init system general resolution returns by ovitters
Parent article: The Debian init system general resolution returns

I think it behooves everyone to go back and read the full discussion thread from March. I mean this re-proposal is basically the same proposal from March right?Its clear to me that Ian was going to re-propose this at some point.

It was a very long discussion in March, and at the time pointing out serious deficiencies with the text and the implicit burden the policy put on maintainers. It seems none of the concerns expressed in that discussion were incorporated in the re-proposal at all. That's a bit unfortunate. Lucas's alternative proposal attempts to pick up where the discussion in March left off. Ian's proposal basically ignores the previous discussion entirely and takes the same text that was proposed in March.

So really its going to come down to whether the opponents to Ian's proposal are willing to step up and go another round and make the same critical and effective arguments they made last time in March. They can't just sit back and expect people to go back and read the previous discussion. Opponents are going to have to gear up and knock this proposal down again like the previous discussion and restate the same objections again.

I think someone should really make it a point to ask why Ian waited so very long to re-propose what is essentially the same thing that was withdrawn in March. I mean waiting till July or even August...for people to cool off, reset a bit and come at this again with a clear head. I can see waiting that long to repropose in good faith. Still gives everyone else a couple of months to deal with resulting workflow changes that might result. But now...it could be argued this is a deliberate attempt to throw a bomb into the jesse release process. I'm not sure this sort of behavior shouldn't be rewarded. It's not like this is an issue that came up suddently. This is very literally a re-proposal of a GR shoved into a desk drawn since March and dusted off just it in time to cause the biggest headache for everyone.

-jef

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 18, 2014 12:40 UTC (Sat) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (3 responses)

> and make the same critical and effective arguments they made last time in March.

You mean the brute forcing of the hung vote by the chairman of the TC in favour of systemd, thereby cutting short the amendment "the opposition" was working on (which has now become this upcoming GR) specifically to allow for a conflict-less resolution by simple majority?

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 18, 2014 14:20 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (2 responses)

There was no “hung vote“ being “brute forced” in the TC. The Debian Constitution says that in cases such as this the chairman of the TC has the casting vote, and that is what eventually decided the matter. Everything happened according to the rules.

It's probably just as well to remember that the people who voted in favour of systemd did so after looking into it and the alternatives in considerable technical detail, while the people who voted in favour of Upstart mostly voted that way because they were the Upstart package maintainer in Debian or otherwise connected with Canonical. People like Russ Allbery, who eventually voted for systemd, generally came across as a lot more dispassionate and level-headed in the discussion than those who were against systemd. There were also various procedural shenanigans mostly instigated by Ian Jackson (including a motion to depose the TC chairman), who is also behind the GR currently being recycled.

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 18, 2014 19:46 UTC (Sat) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (1 responses)

> The Debian Constitution says that in cases such as this the chairman of the TC has the casting vote, and that is what eventually decided the matter.

No, it's what *directly* decided the matter, pre-empting the ongoing effort to find consensus through an amendment. "Eventually" it would have been decided by an amendment concerning loose/tight coupling, much like now, except with a lot less hostility and no need for a GR.

> It's probably just as well to remember [..]

Yes, there was a bit of a smear campaign where those in favour of systemd were hailed as technological visionaries whereas the others obviously must be driven by ulterior motives. In fact, it's just started again in this very thread: "I hope all the DD's understanding that the person proposing this is perfectly okay with the next Debian release getting delayed... indefinitely..."

> There were also various procedural shenanigans mostly instigated by Ian Jackson (including a motion to depose the TC chairman)

In as far as instigating a motion of no confidence against a chairman who derails and cuts short a good-faith effort to find consensus can be called "shenanigans". Seeing how Debian is looking at a GR to decide on the matter, maybe that chairman really did make a short-sighted decision back then.

The Debian init system general resolution returns

Posted Oct 19, 2014 17:20 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

> In as far as instigating a motion of no confidence against a chairman who derails and cuts short a good-faith effort to find consensus can be called "shenanigans".
It clearly wasn't in good faith. Mr Jackson realised that the vote about init systems wouldn't go the way he'd like it to, which is why he tried to conflate two completely unrelated point into a single poll. If that's not a blatantly obvious abuse of the procedure I don't know what is.