Bug#906119: Gratuitous sexual references
Could anybody clarify the scope of these new censorship measurements? Is it just $PATH that needs to be purged of forbidden words or is the whole filesystem affected? The similar youtube-dl tool for example contains plugins for Slutload and other porn sites: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/youtube_dl/extractor/slutload.py
Bug#906119: Gratuitous sexual references
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
Bug#906119: Gratuitous sexual references
Quack,
On 2018-08-23 15:39, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
You made the decision. Do you also own it? "has been … made" to me does
not sound like you do.
*I* did make this decision. I was asked to step up in the debian-private
debate and to decide, that's what I did. Noone from any major teams
(release, ftpmasters… or even DPL) did voiced their opinion as a
representative of such team, no one challenged I was not a legitimate
person to rule this out, so to me this is ruled and past. I may revisit
this decision in the future though.
Calling those who voted for changing or removing the package names
("knights"), personally attacking them by this, is not helpful here.
And
it does not show respect for the point of view of these people.
"knight" is not an insult, merely a comparison. Have all my words need
to be scrutinized for dual meanings?
Some persons approached me on the thread or privately like they were a
representant of women. Without a formal election, I consider these
voices illigitimate.
The thread you referenced clearly shows that it is more than just Ian´s
personal opinion. I agree with him about either changing the package or
removing it. And others did too. Among them also a woman who dared to
speak out.
This is still far from an overwhelming majority of Debian contributors,
also considering a lot of people do not want to be involved in such
heated and ugly threads at all.
Obviously it is important here to "agree to disagree" in order to move
forward. What I see instead is a lot of resistance of each others point
of view, but not only on Ian´s side, also on yours… and I won´t exclude
me, as I did not fully let go and release on the issue. So also on my
side. I aimed at respecting your point of view instead of attacking you
personally. I hope I have been successful. There is a lot unresolved
about this topic.
I have listened, I had to endure all the horrible comparisons and other
horrors of this thread, the fact that I'm most probably a very bad
person for holding up this position and other insinuations, and I have
made my mind. I cannot prove I listened to other's opinions, sorry.
You've been very polite. I agree about the unresolved issues, but even
my small attempt to add something to the discussion failed miserably, so
I'm not very optimistic.
I maintain two packages and still have my sponsor upload them for me. I
think I am not in a position to challenge your decision within the
usual
processes in Debian. So I leave it at that.
I have never looked down on non-DDs. Any contributor or user is welcome
to voice his opinion.
\_o<
--
Marc Dequènes
Bug#906119: Gratuitous sexual references
Marc Dequènes - 23.08.18, 03:30:
> Control: tag -1 wontfix
> Control: severity -1 wishlist
[…]
> A decision has already been made:
>
> http://lists-archives.com/debian-devel/
> 230825-should-the-weboob-package-stay-in-debian.html
You made the decision. Do you also own it? "has been … made" to me does
not sound like you do.
> From what I've seen while at DebConf woman's opinion on this topic
> does not match what self-appointed male knights have presented in the
Calling those who voted for changing or removing the package names
("knights"), personally attacking them by this, is not helpful here. And
it does not show respect for the point of view of these people.
> thread. Also renaming is not seen as a perfect solution either. So
> I'm sorry to say that you only represent your own personal opinion
> here.
The thread you referenced clearly shows that it is more than just Ian´s
personal opinion. I agree with him about either changing the package or
removing it. And others did too. Among them also a woman who dared to
speak out.
I certainly won´t install the package and won´t use the software. If I
ever choose to use its functionality, I´d rather rewrite or fork it.
> If you wish to challenge my decision, then you should contact the
> technical committee (you were once part of this body but you must have
> forgotten). Looking at the prerequisite though it seems to me you
> have failed at « try to understand the other person's point of view »
> (and my experience at DebConf does not make me very optimistic).
Obviously it is important here to "agree to disagree" in order to move
forward. What I see instead is a lot of resistance of each others point
of view, but not only on Ian´s side, also on yours… and I won´t exclude
me, as I did not fully let go and release on the issue. So also on my
side. I aimed at respecting your point of view instead of attacking you
personally. I hope I have been successful. There is a lot unresolved
about this topic.
I maintain two packages and still have my sponsor upload them for me. I
think I am not in a position to challenge your decision within the usual
processes in Debian. So I leave it at that.
Please note that I may not reply on any reply from you, as I already
made my point in the thread you referenced. I just chose to challenge
some of your claims and wording in your explanation.
Thanks,
--
Martin
Bug#906119: Gratuitous sexual references
Control: tag -1 wontfix Control: severity -1 wishlist Quack, A decision has already been made: http://lists-archives.com/debian-devel/230825-should-the-weboob-package-stay-in-debian.html I have added a warning in the description but I believe renaming is a major loss of time and energy for no interesting result. I cannot change the homepage URL and prevent people from going to the website, which is needed to have more info on the various modules, so this would not help. Also I believe hiding things from our sights is not a solution: if you want upstream to change their attitude, then have them convinced. At least now some limits are clear and if, for example, they reintroduce insults in the software's messages or source code the new version will not make it in Debian and later result in removal. From what I've seen while at DebConf woman's opinion on this topic does not match what self-appointed male knights have presented in the thread. Also renaming is not seen as a perfect solution either. So I'm sorry to say that you only represent your own personal opinion here. As for asking the release team, and while I value their input, this has never been their role. De facto ftpmaster has taken this burden and in the past has accepted, and later reaccepted this package. As for calling for a GR, this is not the goal of a GR as you have no general rule to suggest. While taking my decision I have tried to gather argumented criteria which I believe could rule out harmful content (despite a large grey zone), but noone wanted to discuss them, they were seen as mere excuses. So there is not even a beginning of discussion on this front. You anyway cannot use a GR for settling disagreements. If you wish to challenge my decision, then you should contact the technical committee (you were once part of this body but you must have forgotten). Looking at the prerequisite though it seems to me you have failed at « try to understand the other person's point of view » (and my experience at DebConf does not make me very optimistic). Regards. \_o< -- Marc Dequènes
Bug#906119: Gratuitous sexual references
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 disagree with my assessment, then we should refer the dispute about the bug severity to the Release Team, in accordance with usual practice. For the avoidance of doubt: if the Release Team feel the project's consensus is not sufficiently clear; or that a removal decision by the Release Team would lack legitimacy, I would quite understand. In that case the right next step would be a General Resolution. If necessary I will propose and/or sponsor a GR to definitively establish Debian's view that this package is unacceptable. With regret, Ian. [0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00428.html [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00263.html [2] See for example: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00386.html -- Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
