[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#1014908: ITP: gender-guesser -- Guess the gender from first name



On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 11:14:43AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> edward@4angle.com wrote:
> 
> >Package: wnpp
> >Severity: wishlist
> >Owner: Edward Betts <edward@4angle.com>
> >X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-python@lists.debian.org
> >
> >* Package name    : gender-guesser
> >  Version         : 0.4.0
> >  Upstream Author : Israel Saeta P�z <israel@lead-ratings.com>
> >* URL             : https://github.com/lead-ratings/gender-guesser
> >* License         : GPL-3 & GFDL-1.2+
> >  Programming Lang: Python
> >  Description     : Guess the gender from first name
> 
> Oh, not *another* package that tries to guess things from names.
> 
> Do you have a real use for this package? 

Why in the world is that even a relevant question?  There are plenty of
packages in the archive which are useful to essentially nobody apart
from the maintainer and there are even packages which are maintained
without being useful to the maintainer at all (but rather useful to
others).

> There are a *lot* of issues
> in this area, and mis-gendering people is not something to risk
> lightly...
> 

"There are a *lot* of issues in this area" seems rather nebulous.  In
which area?  Given the fact that we have clear and rather unambiguous
guidelines for what constitutes software which is appropriate for
inclusion in the archive, and given that on its face this software does
not seem to be in conflict with any of those guidelines, what then is
the problem?  BTW, I'm not interested in any sort of "well I don't like
..." or "such and such could offend so and so ..." sort of arguments.

Please provide an objective and technically-based reason for why this
particular package should not be in the archive rather than hand-wavy
arguments without any actual substance.  Otherwise, it will appear as
though you are simply attempting to conform everyone else to your own
personal view on things.  I think we can all agree that "there are a
*lot* of issues" with such an approach.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. S�hez


Reply to: