Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
Dominik George dijo [Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 11:43:03PM +0200]: > > So, let's at least be consistent. > > Totally agree with that. > > Debian is not a collection of harmful content, it is an operating system. > > But, unfortunately, there are too many people in the project who think, in the > name of "free speech", protecting racists, nazists, and anarchists is more > important than protecting PoC, jews, or other minorities. As a Jew myself, I often find that quoting bits of Mein Kampf _protects_ Jews. Why? Because it is full of contradictions. (And... Yes, I have a printed copy of the book at home; I was curious to read it. It is an easy read, but I'd never consider it high literature or even instrumental to the third reich's raise to power... but that's a completely different topic)
Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
[please direct replies to -project] At 2023-08-18T14:39:00-0400, Thomas Ward wrote: > This is no longer appropriate for Debian. Fortunes-off binary package > has been removed: can we remove the data files, please. > > These were questioned by upstream as early as 1997. They contain > ethnic and homophobic content and also Nazism quotes from Mein Kampf - > none of these would fit Debian Codes of Conduct today. A complaint has > been raised. I find the complaint defective. It cites no particulars. A quotation cannot be objectionable simply due to its origin. Neither content nor context alone are determinative: human communication is too complex to permit elimination of either factor in interpretation. At least one of the following quotations may be from (an online English translation of) Mein Kampf. Which of these--_necessarily_, by dint of its origin under the reasoning applied in the bug report and your re-prosecution of this issue--constitute violations of the Debian Code of Conduct? A. It was the first church I had ever entered, and I heard with awe the voice of the priest and the fervent responses, but I understood not a word of what was said. B. He had no trade or calling of any dignity or stability whatever on which he could subsist while carrying out an intellectual labour which might spread over many years. C. As a boy it had seemed to him that the position of the parish priest in his native village was the highest in the scale of human attainment; but now that the big city had enlarged his outlook the young man looked up to the dignity of a State official as the highest of all. D. I never darken a church door because I hate hypocrisy almost as much as I love the character and teachings of Jesus Christ. Christianity is a beautiful faith. The only trouble is that there are so pitifully few Christians in the world. > This is not yet removed if I read the changelog from Debian.There are > additional components in the source code which quote these that > suggest it may be prudent for a complete deletion. Downstream in > Ubuntu, this package was removed due to violation of the Ubuntu Code > of Conduct [2], and as the package in Ubuntu and the package in Debian > are identical to each other, it may be prudent for the Debian > community to remove the package in Unstable and Testing for similar > reasons. Would you _quote the reasons_, please? A charge of CoC violation should be particularized, not merely referential (and deferential) to the findings of an independent, and formally unaffiliated, body. Debian should make its own decisions using the brains of its own deliberators, and if any such decision is to be externally delegated, then the content of that decision, fully including its support for its reasoning. > However, this was extended to the source package as the *source > contents* contain the offensive wording, etc. In situations like this I think it is wise to use the active voice. Declare who made the decision and quote their reasoning. If you're familiar with the language of appellate court briefings and decisions in the U.S., for instance, you will see this form of argumentation practiced rigorously. I have also observed it in legal literature from the U.K. and Australia. I submit that this tradition has arisen largely because it works to maintain social acceptance of the judicial process, the parties to which tend to be heavily invested in the outcomes. When decision makers depart from that tradition, they come in for criticism and threaten the legitimacy of their institution as perceived by those who are bound by its rules.[1] > Can we put this package into the 'considered for removal' list or > simply remove the package as violation of the Debian Code of Conduct > from all releases? We _can_. Why are either of these the correct remedy? Which is preferable to the other, and on what basis? How do you measure their respective impacts for the goal you want to attain? What is your argument for either one being preferable? Is there a third result that would be satisfactory? How do you know, and by what standard would you evaluate it compared to the others? I find your complaint vague. It sounds to me like you want the Debian Project to "do something" because other people are "doing something", and, significantly, you want the project, or yourself, to be _perceived_ as "doing something". Being seen as "doing something" is not a productive route to the remedy of injustice, of the social sort or others--it is political performance. Makeweight activities of this sort are too often a currency for esteem and advancement within socio-political movements whose force is dissipating. As a rule, if you want to protect victims of prejudice or discrimination from harm, the most fruitful actions you can take are those that come at some risk to yourself. Shelter Jews from Nazis. March with Black Lives Matter advocates, particu
Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 05:27:55PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > Also, if quoting Mein Kampf or anything else from Hitler is problematic, > then perhaps fortune-anarchism (source package blag-fortune) should also > be considered for removal. It includes quotes from numerous individuals > who have themselves engaged in terrorism or other violence toward > individuals and groups, supported those who have engaged in such > activities, or been otherwise complicit in such. Lol bothsidesing anarchism and fascism -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer https://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
> "Roberto" == Roberto C Sánchez writes: Roberto> sources." I mean, if you're going to wave the code of Roberto> conduct around (or Andy in the case of the initial report), Roberto> then perhaps we ought to distinguish between what the code Roberto> of conduct was very clearly intended to govern, i.e., Roberto> personal communication between participants in the various Roberto> means of communication available to participants in the Roberto> Debian project, and what is contained in fortunes-mod (and Roberto> other packages*), which is written content originating from Roberto> various sources, none of which was created or communicated Roberto> in a way which any reasonable interpretation of the code of Roberto> conduct would cover. I strongly agree with the above. I really hope that if Branden is not going to get around to bringing back fortunes-off and closing the bug asking for its removal that someone else does. My blood pressure goes up enough when I interact with this kind of conversation that perhaps I should not agree to maintain fortune-mod myself. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
> So, let's at least be consistent. Totally agree with that. Debian is not a collection of harmful content, it is an operating system. But, unfortunately, there are too many people in the project who think, in the name of "free speech", protecting racists, nazists, and anarchists is more important than protecting PoC, jews, or other minorities. -nik
Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 02:39:00PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote: > >This is not yet removed if I read the changelog from Debian.There are >additional components in the source code which quote these that suggest it >may be prudent for a complete deletion. Downstream in Ubuntu, this >package was removed due to violation of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct [2], >and as the package in Ubuntu and the package in Debian are identical to >each other, it may be prudent for the Debian community to remove the >package in Unstable and Testing for similar reasons. However, this was >extended to the source package as the *source contents* contain the >offensive wording, etc. > >Can we put this package into the 'considered for removal' list or simply >remove the package as violation of the Debian Code of Conduct from all >releases? > I will offer the classic, "if you don't want to be offended, then don't install the package or look at its sources." I mean, if you're going to wave the code of conduct around (or Andy in the case of the initial report), then perhaps we ought to distinguish between what the code of conduct was very clearly intended to govern, i.e., personal communication between participants in the various means of communication available to participants in the Debian project, and what is contained in fortunes-mod (and other packages*), which is written content originating from various sources, none of which was created or communicated in a way which any reasonable interpretation of the code of conduct would cover. * I'll return to the other packages in a moment. However, that sort of thing seems never to be adequate for those who seem to insist on policing everyone and everything for the sake preventing the delicate sensibilities of who knows whom from being offended, as evidenced by the willingness to blatantly abuse the code of conduct to contort it to cover something it plainly does not cover, nor was it intended to cover. All of that said, let's return to the other packages. If content in fortunes-mod can be labeled homophobic, misogynist, misandrist, racist (whatever meaning happens to be attached to those words at the moment), then the same can be said of a substantial fraction of the content in fortunes-es. The similarly offensive content in fortunes-es should result in its removal. Also, if quoting Mein Kampf or anything else from Hitler is problematic, then perhaps fortune-anarchism (source package blag-fortune) should also be considered for removal. It includes quotes from numerous individuals who have themselves engaged in terrorism or other violence toward individuals and groups, supported those who have engaged in such activities, or been otherwise complicit in such. So, let's at least be consistent. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023 at 02:39:00PM -0400, Thomas Ward wrote: > Hello. > > Debian Bug #1024501 [1]indicates that data files are present in the > fortune-mod package which are against Debian policy: > > > Dear Maintainer, > > *** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate *** > >* What led up to the situation? > > As mentioned on Debian-project mailing list: > This is no longer appropriate for Debian. Fortunes-off binary package has > been removed: can we remove the data files, please. > > This is not yet removed if I read the changelog from Debian.There are > additional components in the source code which quote these that suggest it > may be prudent for a complete deletion. Downstream in Ubuntu, this package > was removed due to violation of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct [2], and as the > package in Ubuntu and the package in Debian are identical to each other, it > may be prudent for the Debian community to remove the package in Unstable > and Testing for similar reasons. However, this was extended to the source > package as the *source contents* contain the offensive wording, etc. > As the person who raised this on debian-project in November 2022 - see the archives for debian-project for November/December 2022 > > Can we put this package into the 'considered for removal' list or simply > remove the package as violation of the Debian Code of Conduct from all > releases? > There was unfortunately no consensus on removal on debian-project and G. Branden Robinson filed an ITA - intent to adopt - for this package at the time. In the absence of any apparent package, this should possibly be added to files considered for removal: in some sense, it would still have been easier to do this prior to Bookworm release, but, hey, you can't do everything :) Thoughts? As noted, the bug remains open. All the very best, as ever, Andy Cater [amaca...@debian.org] > > > Thomas > > > > [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1024501 > > [2]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fortune-mod/+bug/1996682
Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
Hello. Debian Bug #1024501 [1]indicates that data files are present in the fortune-mod package which are against Debian policy: Dear Maintainer, *** Reporter, please consider answering these questions, where appropriate *** * What led up to the situation? As mentioned on Debian-project mailing list: This is no longer appropriate for Debian. Fortunes-off binary package has been removed: can we remove the data files, please. These were questioned by upstream as early as 1997. They contain ethnic and homophobic content and also Nazism quotes from Mein Kampf - none of these would fit Debian Codes of Conduct today. A complaint has been raised. It would seem sensible to remove these quotes and content immediately prior to the release of Debian Bookworm This is not yet removed if I read the changelog from Debian.There are additional components in the source code which quote these that suggest it may be prudent for a complete deletion. Downstream in Ubuntu, this package was removed due to violation of the Ubuntu Code of Conduct [2], and as the package in Ubuntu and the package in Debian are identical to each other, it may be prudent for the Debian community to remove the package in Unstable and Testing for similar reasons. However, this was extended to the source package as the *source contents* contain the offensive wording, etc. Can we put this package into the 'considered for removal' list or simply remove the package as violation of the Debian Code of Conduct from all releases? Thomas [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1024501 [2]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fortune-mod/+bug/1996682
