Interpreting the init system GR results

To: debian-project@lists.debian.org

Subject: Interpreting the init system GR results

From: Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:41:22 -0800

Message-id: <[🔎] 871toyj2bh.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>

I originally posted this in a thread on debian-private, but on further reflection it seems appropriate for a broader audience. There is quite a lot of discussion in various places about what the recent GR result means. Some are concluding that systemd won in some way that implies Debian is not going to support other init systems, or at least that support for other init systems is in immediate danger. A lot of that analysis concludes that the pro-systemd "side" in Debian won some sort of conclusive victory. I have a different perspective. I think we just had a GR in which the Debian developer community said that we, as a community, would like to work through all of the issues around init systems together, as a community, rather than having any one side of the argument win unambiguously and impose its views on those who disagree. There were options on the ballot that clearly required loose coupling and that clearly required tight coupling. The top two options did neither of those things. The second-highest option said, effectively, that we should feel free to exercise our technical judgement for our own packages, but should do so with an eye to enabling people to make different choices, and should merge their changes and contributions where possible. The highest option said that we don't even want to say that, and would instead prefer to work this whole thing out through discussion, respect, consensus, and mutual support, without giving *anyone* a clear mandate or project-wide blessing for their approach. In other words, the way I choose to look at this GR is that the project as a whole just voted to take away the sticks that we were using to beat each other with. In a way, we just chose thet *hardest* option. We didn't make a simplifying technical decision that provides clear guidance to everyone. Instead, we made a complicating social decision that says that, sorry, there's no short cut to avoid having to talk to each other, respect each other's views, and try to reach workable collaborative compromises. Even though it's really hard, even though everyone is raw and upset, that's what the project as a whole is asking us to do. Are we up to the challenge? -- Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>