Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian - fortune-mod

[Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org>]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 07:02:27PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> 
> OK. With respect to Branden, Sam, Rodrigo Sanchez and Wouter - this isn't
> *just* a free speech matter and Debian isn't particularly censoring content.
> 
I don't view the proposed removal of fortunes-off as censorship. Rather,
it represents a misuse of the Code of Conduct (at least in its current
formulation).

> That being said: In some sense, the Code of Conduct governs how we behave with 
> respect to the outside world and definitely colours how we appear there to
> Debian outsiders. We have a Code of Conduct and folk expect us to follow it.
> 
And I would propose that folks expect just as much that we won't misuse,
abuse, or weaponize the Code of Conduct. Even if others don't expect
that, it's what I expect. I hope that I am not the only one.

[SNIP a whole bunch of reasons.]

You brought up a multitude of things here. Apart from the point about
freedom of speech in the US, all of them seem valid points to raise in
connection with answering the question "should this package be removed?"
The fact that very few people use it, that essentially nobody maintains
it, that upstream and downstream support for it is now gone, and so
forth.

I certainly do not object to a WNPP bug along the lines of "by all
appearances, this package seems to be abandoned both inside and outside
of Debian. In X months, if nobody has stepped up and taken over
maintainership (including upstream), then its removal well be
requested."

What I do object to in this case is the value judgment* as the basis for
the removal and the misuse of the Code of Conduct.

If there is a gap such that we require the ability to remove packages
for reasons other than those for which packages are customarily removed,
then let's by all means discuss the criteria, agree on them, and then
act.

Regards,

-Roberto

* No need to rehash all of that stuff about values, culture, differences
  and so on. But suffice it to say that the packages in question do not
  align with my personal values. However, I am not arguing for continued
  inclusion of these packages based on values. Rather, I am arguing
  against setting (continuing?) a precedent of improper removal of
  packages.

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez