Quoting Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña (email@example.com):
> WTF have you done translators? You've converted a non-issue (a translation)
> into a political statement (Taiwan independent?) into a bigger problem for
> Debian (kernel maintenance). You're not the only one to blame here (other
> translators at debian-boot are to blame for this issue) but you've allowed
> things to get out of hand.
I'm a bit surprised by your vision of these things. It appears that
you see this problem as coming from translators.
Up to now, the issue of the Taiwan country name has the following
background, to my understanding:
-d-i uses iso-codes for country names and translations
-iso-codes uses ISO-3166 as a reference
-one entry in ISO-3166 appears to hurt the sensitivity of some Debian
users and contributors
-we (everyone : d-i team, Chinese people, other DD's) try to explore
all possible solutions for keeping both our commitment to standards
and our users happy
-possible solutions are currently explored
-Herbert announces he want to resign because during discussions the
possibility of replacing the offending name has been mentioned
As I already wrote in another mail in this thread (the mail was less
highly crossposted than this one, especially not in -devel), I think
this reaction is way too important and far too early.
I do not see any specific actions from translators for ending in this
situation. It mostly looks like overreacting to something that even
DID NOT HAPPEN is to be blamed here.
> So, please, Christian, explain this:
> > Because, imho, this is a case where we plan to deviate from a
> > standard. We have strong arguments for doing this, most of them being
> > motivated by the Debian Social Contract (make our possible to benefit
> > our users), and I think they will be even stronger if they are
> > accepted to Debian Technical Comittee.
> What _technical_ advantage to our users does this deviation from the
> standard introduce? I just don't see it. Feel free to ask for a change in
No technical advantage, of course. My feeling is that deliberately
deviating from a standard has to get some validation somewhere. I do
not feel authorized (or Alastair who is the iso-codes package
maintainer) to do this, if I decide to do so (WHICH NEITHER I NOR
ALASTAIR DID....look at fr.po for the iso_3166 list), only based on my
If you think the Technical Commitee is inappropriate for this, I may
understand. But then, we will have to find some validation structure.
> the standard, if needed be, not in the name of the Debian project (unless
> you are empowered somehow to do so).
This is part of the current actions, see the thread. A proposal for
specifically asking the ISO-3166-MA on this issue has been made,
because it seems to appear that they aren't clear on this topic.
> Last time I looked, Debian did not had any political bias. And now it shows
> up, hurting our ability to do technical work.
> Nice job.
I absolutely do not appreciate being accused of bringing a political
bias on this topic. If you look back, you won't see any such action
from myself for this. A non technical issue has been raised by some of
our users and we're trying to find a possible solution for it. I do
have my own opinion and I have made my possible for not pushing it
behind to much, that's all.
All this involves some discussion between people who feel
concerned. This discussion is still happening. No conlusion has been
made yet and I'm not even sure that there is a solution which will
So, I have no idea of which "nice job" we (and specifically myself)