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

Re: Renaming the Debian Project

On 11/01/16 17:54, Chris Knadle wrote:
> Daniel Pocock:
>> 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.
> No, it's not PR statements.  Police departments have an officer assigned to

The police officer has a twitter page, it looks like her responsibility
is PR:


When I say PR is "not a credible source", I don't mean that in a
disparaging way, I'm just saying it is not an official report.

> state the facts known when the media calls them... which they do regularly
> to find out about new events that have happened.  I don't see why you'd need
> the police department or the media author to be under oath to accept what
> they state, especially being that in this case what's stated correlates with
> what Ian seems to have said himself.

Haven't you ever seen an interrogation in the movies where they lie to a
suspect and tell him that his brother has just signed a confession?
They do that in real life, it is not just the movies.  I'm not trying to
disparage them for it, just to point out that it is part of how they do
their job.  It can be the same with PR.  Then they go to court and take
an oath like anybody else and tell the truth as best as any human being can.

> Being that there's not likely to be a court case, nobody is going to be
> under oath and so if we went by the "rules" you've laid out above, there
> would never be anything what you call "credible" to discuss, and therefore
> all this message does is to try to hush others politically, and I object to
> that.

Court case: no, people who are deceased generally can't go on trial

In some situations there could be an inquest, in a court room, where
people give evidence under oath:
but such a procedure is not prosecuting Ian or the police or anybody
else, it is just to establish the facts.  This can happen after an
industrial accident, for example, to identify better safety procedures
and avoid future loss of life.

It is not about hushing people politically, it is just out of respect
for his family and others who know Ian personally.  A long thread with a
many opinions about the tweets would not be helpful at this time.



Reply to: