Re: Questionable Package Present in Debian: fortune-mod
Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> writes:
> Removing a package from the archive purely on the grounds that it
> contains objectionable text, if such is the reason for not distributing
> it, is making a value judgement of that text. The concerns that have
> been raised so far for objecting to the content of the package in
> question are applicable to quite a number of other packages in Debian as
> well. Hyperbolic perhaps, but it doesn't seem that far separated as
> analogies go.
I think the analogy adds a lot of heat, but I think this is getting to the
heart of the problem with this recurring discussion.
I think one can make an argument that Debian is not intended to be a
collection of random data that someone finds interesting. There are a lot
of things in the world that are available under free-software-compatible
licenses and that we could theoretically package, such as the entire
contents of the Gutenberg Project. We by and large don't package such
things, in part because that feels a bit afield of the purpose of the
project.
We could potentially make a firmer decision that we only package software
and not large data files, and that would be a reasonable and relatively
straightforward decision we could build criteria around. That would imply
that we wouldn't package large fortune databases, the Bible, doc-rfc, and
so forth. It would probably also affect a lot of other things that I
haven't thought about.
I'm dubious there's a consensus to make that sort of change, but I think
that would at least be a clear boundary to draw around the purpose of
Debian that would be consistent with some of the other comments on this
thread.
But if we're not going to do that, I think these decisions get a lot more
subjective. Currently, what we're roughly doing in practice is that
people package whatever they feel would be useful in a package, with some
check by the archive team that this has some plausible connection to
Debian and doesn't consume excessive Debian resources. (For instance, I
suspect they wouldn't be willing to accept the complete Gutenberg
Project just because it's quite large.) Things that have a more direct
tie to software that we're also packaging are going to be more readily
accepted, something that applies to both fortune databases and to the text
of the Bible, since in both cases they are packaged alongside software in
Debian designed to consume and manipulate that data format.
We could adopt an additional subjective decision process around how much
we like the content, but, well, this feels to me like a recipe for
constant contentious project arguments of exactly the type we're both not
great at handling and that burn huge amounts of emotional energy for
everyone involved.
I think it's possible to draw a very clear distinction between the
contents of packages and our interactions with each other (the subject
matter the project Code of Conduct is designed for). The primary
distinction is *context*: communications with each other are directed at
specific people and happen within the context of an ongoing working
relationship. We're trying to accomplish something together, that
requires communicating with each other, and that communication should
therefore support that joint effort and reflect the ideals of the
*community* that we're trying to build to work on the project.
This is generally not the context of Debian packages. I could think of
cases where it was, and where the Code of Conduct would apply, but that
would involve packages that are being uploaded to specifically target
other people in the project, which thankfully isn't the case here. Or it
would involve using the package to communicate directly to users, such as
enabling an offensive fortunes database by default to show quotes during
the Debian installation process, something we obviously wouldn't do.
Absent that sort of intent, packages are very much like books in a
library. The person checking out the book brings their own context; the
presence of the book does not impose a context in the way that direct
communication between project members do.
For example, I would find it very off-putting for someone to prosletyze at
me within a Debian collaboration context. If I asked them to stop, I'd
expect them to stop. But the presence of the text of the Bible in the
archive doesn't do that; it's a lot like a book in a library. And even if
one disagrees quite strongly with things that it says, it still serves a
separate purpose in a separate context: as a reference, as a research
tool, etc.
The fortunes database is kind of a trivial instance of this. The stakes
are pretty low, which is probably part of why the argument is so heated
(to borrow the old trope about academic debates). It's essentially only a
proxy fight over larger principles. But I think the larger principles
weigh against embracing some sort of project-wide content-based decision
on package vetting, and certainly against applying the Code of Conduct to
something that does not have at all the same context as what the Code of
Conduct was designed to address.
If we were going to write a project content policy (which I'm dubious we
really need to do, or that it would be worth the emotional effort
required), I think it would look much different than the Code of Conduct
because it would have different goals. It wouldn't be about building a
community or encouraging productive collaboration, because the contents of
our archive don't need to do either of those things. Lots of people use
Debian who are not members of any shared community, and this is a feature.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: