Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 02:35:18PM -0400, Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 2:29 PM Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> wrote:
> > The reasons why the FTP masters might reject a package from the archive
> > are public [0]. Nowhere on the list is there an entry that says
> > "somebody doesn't like this package" or "it has stuff that might offend
> > someone" as a valid reason to either prevent a package entering Debian
> > or to precipitate its removal.
>
> This list is not complete nor authoritative.
>
Ah, that's good to know.
I perhaps should have phrased my statement a little differently, so as
to not give the impression that I was assuming some level of authority.
> Without an ftpteam hat on, but my point of view -- I believe the team
> would absolutely reject a package only based on its name (see:
> #914179).
>
That's precisely the sort of Code of Conduct abuse that is at issue
here. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now.
> FWIW, I've tried hard not to provide input on this thread, since it
> doesn't seem like I have anything to add, but I will note we wouldn't
> allow a source package in sid with DFSG non-free contents, even if
> they're not in the .deb.
This makes sense and it is consistent with a sensible view of what it
means to "distribute" a package (in binary and in source forms). I am
fairly certain that this has been discussed on the various mailing lists
a few times since I've been in the project, so it is not at all
surprising.
> The question is do we treat content in
> violation of project norms as seriously as we treat nonfree?
>
That would seem to be the sort of question that needs to be resolved
adequately, so that we can stop abusing the Code of Conduct in this way.
There are technical reasons for packages to be rejected or removed,
and there are non-technical reasons (currently, things like license,
abandoned, etc). It would be necessary to add a new non-technical
criteria that described the boundaries with sufficient clarity to allow
the responsible parties to evaluate the various situations against those
criteria/boundaries.
Even something as simple as "a package may be rejected and/or removed if
its contents or some subset thereof would reasonably be considered a
violation of the Code of Conduct if directed at an individual or group
via a means otherwise subject to the Code of Conduct."
Regards,
-Roberto
--
Roberto C. Sánchez
Reply to: