Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:55:50AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > It is covered. We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
> > > of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
> > > software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming
> > > to all people, instead of one that mirrors a wider culture which
> > > discriminates against people based on their identity).
> [..]
> > The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes participation by
> > everyone,
>
> No. The sentence goes on:
>
> "We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact
> constructively with our community".
>
> Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
> count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.
That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1]. If
another package insults a totem law that declares all twins need to be
killed at birth, would we remove calligra-gemini as it dares to include a
reference to those in its name?
Here we have an useful piece of software. Its authors believe that its
somewhat puerile but harmless name serves well as a detector of those who
are "offended first, think later". You're proposing to exclude them.
What's wrong with looking at boobs? The vast majority of humankind (by
measuring genital blood flow when viewing such an image, the percentage of
women is actually higher than that of men) enjoys that. Many of them deny
that, though, having been forced to believe in a "sin".
I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite that text
having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its 75M. I wouldn't
protest even the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf (stats hotly contested,
but no doubt of the former being #1 and the latter #4).
In comparison, the concept of boobs has a _positive_ effect. It does less
harm than the concept of kittens, and no one but bird lovers protest those.
So no, that _you_ want to not use a certain content doesn't mean anyone else
should be denied that right. You want to make Debian less inclusive,
poorer. Removing a perfectly working piece of software without a technical
reason is certainly not "interacting constructively".
Meow.
[1]. And I insist on calling it a religion, as it has the hallmarks of one.
--
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets. Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.
Reply to: