Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Matthew Vernon writes:
> > 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.
>
> That works if Debian was a non-diverse groups where everyone had similar
> views on what is offensive. In that case the maintainer could just have
> done whatever or would not have uploaded the package at all.
>
> Sadly(?) Debian is too diverse and "we (as a project)" won't agree on
> what is offensive or where what level of offensive content is okay.
We don't need to do that to decide that in *this* instance the mark has been
reached.
> In this case I feel like we might as well try to reach a consensus on
> whether pride parades are a display of sexual depravity, sexual
> liberation or self-objectification; or skipping that part any trying to
> agree if and how pride parades should be fixed.
This is not about pride parades, this is about a number of badly named
programs in a package in Debian.
> The current policy[1] leaves it up to the maintainers to make this
> judgement and I don't think a discussion on -devel@ will reach a
> consensus that would take away the responsibility here.
That's a good point. However, while the final decision is for the
maintainers to make, there's no reason why we can't discuss it to bring
up arguments one way or the other. This can only help the maintainer to
make the right decision (provided we discuss the actual subject).
--
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?
-- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
Hacklab
Reply to: