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

Re: Renaming the Debian Project

On 06/01/16 05:19, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Daniel Pocock:
>> On 31/12/15 04:22, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 02:03:40PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote:
>>>> It's unfortunate that Debian is named after Debra and Ian,
>>>> because having the project named after a white supremacist, who
>>>> used his ex-wifes name as an trophy.
>>> I agree in whole with the responses of my fellow developers Dimitri
>>> and Russ.  I also believe, because the Internet never forgets, that
>>> this libelous accusation needs to be addressed directly.
>>> In the time leading up to Ian's death, he posted on his now-deleted
>>> twitter account about an altercation with police.  He described
>>> being the victim of police brutality, and expressed the desire that
>>> his story be widely known - in the hopes that, where stories of
>>> police brutality (up to and including murder) of racial minorities
>>> in the United States have failed to lead to the systemic reforms
>>> that are needed, perhaps a story of a white, affluent, educated,
>>> middle-aged man being a victim of the same systems might tip the 
>>> scale.
>>> In the course of expressing these views on twitter, Ian used a
>>> racial epithet.
>> In fact, it has not been verified that those Tweets were from Ian
>> himself.  It can only be said that there were Tweets and they appear
>> to originate from Ian's Twitter ID.
>> Had somebody hacked his account?
> I believe the Tweets that have been posted are really from Ian.  The basis
> of my belief is a story at The Register which quotes the facts as stated by
> the San Francisco Police Department in the last few paragraphs:
>    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_founder/

There is a general consensus not to keep picking through the details on
the mailing list.  I only posted those questions about the matter to
emphasize the lack of information - none of the material anybody has
provided can answer those questions conclusively with hard evidence so
there is nowhere for this thread to go.  Please don't feel I am
encouraging people to seek out answers, I only posted the questions to
highlight the lack of facts in the original troll mail, we just have to
sit back and wait and see if they are answered from a credible source.

The PR statements are not a credible source, only an official report
from an inquiry has any weight.  PR statements are not made under oath
like evidence in court or an affidavit.

Reply to: