Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
"Marc Dequènes (duck)" <duck@duckcorp.org> writes:
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and
> the name of the binaries and further content was deemed
> offensive. This was already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the
> package was reintroduced and has been in the archive since then.
Briefly, I think it would be good if the names were changed. I think the
names contribute to a "laddish" environment where sexual objectification of
women can be seen to be OK, and that this is something we should try and
avoid in Debian. I say this without implying any malign intent on the
authors part - they've been named thus for some time now, and what was
once considered OK is not necessarily still considered OK (that's
progress!).
One argument that might be made about this is that "it's not that
offensive, really, why make a fuss?" and thus it's not this particular
thing that is hampering our efforts to make Debian a bit less pale,
male, and stale (and, so, we shouldn't do anything about it).
Part of the problem, I think, is that there are just so many of these
"little things", and that together they make up an environment that is
hostile to folk who aren't male (and, often, white and heterosexual). If
it was just one "little thing" then perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, but
it's not, it's hundreds of "little things", and getting any one of them
improved can involve a vast argument about how this "little thing" isn't
worth getting worked up about (et seq, et seq).
We shouldn't need to have numbers of people having to justify why a
particular thing is offensive before we (as a project) try and fix
it. So, without accusing anyone of anything, I'd like to propose we (or,
ideally, the upstream author) rename weboob et al to make one small step
to being a bit more inclusive.
Regards,
Matthew
--
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org
Reply to: