On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:30:25PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > Finally, I have hard time seeing under which powers could L be decided > by the tech-ctte: the policy team hasn't worked on that (§6.1.1), there > is no juridiction overlap that I could see (nor a disagreement about the > matter, §6.1.2), and it's not formulated as an overrule (§6.1.4) or an > advice (§6.1.5). The only relevant bit would be §6.1.3 as Paul > specifically asked for in <20131025184344.gb4...@helios.pault.ag>:
So Didier recently forwarded this to the secretary, saying: > I've mailed Message-ID <1997214.E2693zAoXp@gyllingar> to the init system > bug, but forgot to CC you for a more binding advice on the > constitutionality of L. I'm therefore hereby writing to you explicitely; > my original message is attached. > > Don't hesitate to prove me wrong publically, I'm only interested in > having a constitutionally sane decision out, rather sooner than later. I have also asked them under which power they decide things. This makes things so much clearer for everybody. The text from the last vote said: > == dependencies rider version L (Loose coupling) == > > Software outside of an init system's implementation may not require > a specific init system to be pid 1, although degraded operation is > tolerable. > > Maintainers are encouraged to accept technically sound patches > to enable improved interoperation with various init systems. I'm guessing that under you're asking for the interpretation of this in 6.1.1: | In each case the usual maintainer of the relevant software or | documentation makes decisions initially And think that because the policy maintainers didn't try to make any decision yet, the ctte can't make that decisions? I can certainly understand that that is one way of looking at it. I'm not yet sure about this and would like to receive some input. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
