Re: Bug#138541: ITP: debian-sanitize (was Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material)
On Sat, 2002-03-16 at 15:39, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I object to using any subjective method (such as popular vote) for
> determining which packages should be conflicted with in such a package.
OK; we can scratch the Conflicts: part unless someone else can give a
good reason to have it. The package can act like vrms, and provide a
report of some kind. Perhaps the package could also take configuration
(adding or removing packages for personal preference), and could
possibly produce a package via equivs or some such for those who want
it.
> In addition, if you use the simple criterion of having Debian developers
> indicate whether they find a given package offensive, I think the only
> two packages you'll get a majority of developers to say they find
> offensive are vi and emacs.
True. Unfortunately, when you're talking about something as subjective
as offense, there aren't many good classification systems that won't
themselves be offensive to someone. Democratic vote strikes me as one
of the few that's hard to challenge.
Also note my proposal to give the DPL "special rights", which could
allow for certain abuses to be curtailed.
This is an experiment that relies on some assumptions:
- Most developers, joking aside, are capable of distinguishing between
technical preference and moral repugnance.
- Most developers would like to avoid flamewars like this in the
future, and "punting" to a package like this is a good way to stop them.
- Most developers would prefer adding information to the system ("these
packages might be offensive to some people") to removing information
("this code/output/data is offensive to some people, so I'll remove it
in the diff").
- Most developers will realize that trivializing the package by voting
on technical grounds ("emacs offends me") will render the package
unusable for the purposes above.
If it turns out I'm not right, I'll orphan the package and call the
experiment a failure.
Reply to: