On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:05:29PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> [I'm using the pseudonymous respondent's message to reply to Mr. Cater
> as well. Mind the angle brackets for quotation context.]
>
> At 2022-11-23T14:14:38-0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> > On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > > Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various
> > > developers who have written defending free speech: we've had others
> > > who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of
> > > the status quo.
> > >
> > > There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*.
>
No - there is a consensus that splitting things based on cultural preference
is hard - you and Sam both agree on that point - various other people in
the discussion have had other viewpoints. Notably, I'm not actually
suggesting that it's straightforward for all the reasons put forward by
everyone in the discussion.
> I gather that you don't join in that consensus, because your
> prescriptions are quick and easy. Mr. Dowland's assessment of everyone
> who wants his action reversed as being desirous of association with
> racism, sexism, and pro-Nazi sentiment[1] is facile, hasty, and
> fallacious.
>
The reason I brought this to debian-project is absolutely that CT had a query
from someone living in Germany as to the desirability of Nazi quotations in
fortunes-off and the suggestion from that person that this *might* be illegal
to host in Germany, Austria [Czech Republic and France at least also have
similar laws I believe]. As I wrote, I wasn't sure that Nazi quotes were still
there - they are - and you were helpful in identifying where several of them
are.
Notably, I haven't assessed anybody's motives in this.
> Neither you nor he, therefore, is well placed to present a
> (presumptively neutral) summary of the discussion. (Neither am I.)
>
I don't have a categorical view one way or another on this hence bringing it
to this list. It did seem to me that some of the quotations wouldn't fit well
with the Code of Conduct. If you take Sam's view, that's OK, because this is
a game and we shouldn't apply the spirit of the Code of Conduct to software
Some of the people replying have one view, some another.
> > > Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with
> > > the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on
> > > preference. It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to
> > > consideration of fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said
> > > about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked
> > > about cultural perceptions.
> > >
> > > A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
> > > fortune files at all.
>
> I'm going to have to add "a serious suggestion" to "honestly" and "trust
> me" as linguistic tags that flag a declaration as deceptive.
>
It should be obvious from Debian list archives that I try to think through
what I write and consider who is reading it. It's not a frivolous, spur of
the moment sentence: it's not axiomatic that we should still package
fortunes and translate them. Nor is it necessary for us to police what others
would choose to read or select for themselves.
It is a serious suggestion because it's thought through: you may note
from what I write that I'm endeavouring to be even-handed and transparent.
I also try to write clear prose and not weasel words.
Just because it was done that way in 1995 doesn't mean we have to do this now.
> Have you worked on embedded systems, ever? It's not _necessary_ for
> Debian to package much of anything. We could arguably serve just as
> well as "universal OS" by providing only a nucleus, say, a high-quality
> microkernel.[2] Minimalism has never been an objective of the package
> archive. This fact has been so transparently obvious for so long that
> it is difficult for me to maintain the presumption that you are arguing
> in good faith.
>
I'm not arguing in *bad* faith; I'm thinking that we don't have to package
everything that we always have just because we've always done it that way
> > I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.
>
> Sorry to hear that. My own reaction is better termed "pissed off".
>
> > I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the
> > collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the
> > changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
> > more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive
> > additions at least as recently as 2006).
>
> Yes, some of them were collected by Joseph Carter ("knghtbrd"), a former
> Debian developer, ca. 2000 and for some time afterward.
>
> > The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files,
> > which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be
> > valuable.
>
> I agree with this. If I were maintainer I think I'd thus segregate the
> sort of mathy
