Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>]

Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>So to be concrete, how about this:
>
>  N. Packages with potentially offensive content
>
>  As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
>  contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
>  any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split
>  out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain
>  parts can do so).  In making these decisions you should take into
>  account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement.
>
>  If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
>  a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
>  by adding "-offensive".  For example, "cowsay" vs
>  "cowsay-offensive".  In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>  be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>  or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
>
>This is hopefully vague enough that everyone can agree it ?

Looks good to me, yes.

>> Maybe we can experiment with some voluntary guidelines for maintainers
>> to work out any bugs *before* we merge it with policy?
>
>IME trying to write guidelines like this often involves arguments over
>hypothetical or unreal situations, and can raise a lot of concerns
>that don't need to be resolved in practice to solve real issues.

Agreed.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...