Ian, you clearly need to get a life. Or an enema.
On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 14:36:29 +0100 Ian Jackson < ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > Package: weboob > Version: 1.3-1 > Severity: serious > > Hi. > > As has been extensively discussed elsewhere (eg [1]), this package has > some unfortunate sexual references. These problems include: > * Command names which contain sexual references > * Sexually suggestive icons etc. > There are, I suspect, other problems. The sexualised content is both > gratuitous and unambiguous. > > IMO this is in conflict with with Debian's values, in particular those > underlying the Diversity Statement. gregor herrmann explained very > well why this is unacceptable here [0]. As you know, the matter has > been discussed with upstream. It appears that upstream are, > unfortunately, not willing to change this. [2] > > This situation is very unfortunate. As I understand it the package > itself is very useful for some otherwise difficult situations. > However, IMO the problems are sufficiently serious that the package as > it is is not suitable for Debian, no matter how useful it is. > > So, given that upstream have rejected requests for change, IMO the > available responses for the Debian project are to bowdlerise the > package (that is, to rename the commands, review the documentation, > change the icons, and so on), or to remove the package. > > It seems to me from reading the thread on -devel that a substantial > majority of the Debian contributors there agree with that conclusion. > Accordingly I have marked this bug as "serious". > > > I think I need to make some points about the right process for > handling this disagreement: > > Of course these postings to -devel may not represent a real view of > the project's consensus. Mailing list traffic is not a particularly > good way of judging these matters. A better guide is the Diversity > Statement GR, perhaps: although it is not directly on point, the > majority in favour was overwhelming. Nevertheless there is probably > some room for differing assessments of the project's overall view. > > While there is no requirement for a package maintainer to abide by the > project consensus, whether a package is suitable for the release is > ultimately a matter for the Release Team. On a matter like this I > would expect the Release Team to follow what they see as the project's > rough consensus. > > I had hoped that this matter could be brought to a satisfactory > resolution amicably. However that does not now appear to be possible. > The discussion on -devel is becoming a distraction. IMO we need to > bring it to a close. > > I consider this matter important, and I am convinced that the project > consensus is with me. Under the circumstances it would be quite wrong > to just drop it, and accept the unacceptable status quo. > > So that is why I am filing this bug now. If you as maintainer
