Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> I think the Release Team is the wrong authority for this enquiry.
>
> As I understand it, you feel that weboob (in its current condition) is
> in conflict with Debian's values (e.g. the CoC or the diversity
> statement). The reason why I suspect the release team is the wrong
> authority is that other packages violating Debian's values (namely the
> DFSG) are not shipped in Debian *at all* (i.e. it is not in "main"
> regardless of suite).
Thanks for your consideration. I see where you are coming from.
In this case (and ones like it) I think it would do disproportionate
damage to remove the package from stable suites. So treating this bug
as RC would get quite close to the right practical effect. (As for
unstable, I think it should probably be removed unless it is useful to
keep it there while work is done on fixing this bug.)
> Secondly, even if we *could* make the decision for weboob (or the scope
> of our powers are sufficient for you in this case), I think the project
> is much better served having a separate authority on whether something
> is in line with the CoC/Diversity statement.
I see some force in this argument. (Although I disagree with your
characterisation of this as a "non-package related issue". The
problem is precisely with the content of the package. But it is a
social rather than a technical problem.)
I think I need to look elsewhere. I don't think the Technical
Committee is the right body.
Niels would the RT have a problem with a request (from an appropriate
body, or from the members via a 1:1 GR) to treat this as an RC bug for
release team purposes ? I mean, would you feel that such a request
would be stepping on your toes, or would you welcome it for its
clarity ?
Your suggestion that there might be a "separate authority" does
suggest to me the possibility that you think this is, consitutionally,
something that "no-one else has responsibility for", ie it is in the
DPL's bailiwick and as-yet-undelegated.
Or maybe you think it's ftpmaster's responsibility. Sadly I don't
think it would be a good idea to ask the ftpmaster team to be bear the
political weight of what is going to be a controversial decision
whatever way it goes.
Chris, what do you think ? I think I have nearly run out of things to
try that aren't a GR. I'm sure I can get sponsors for a GR, and help
drafting it. I also hope that it would be sufficient for the GRa to
state some non-binding opinions, which I guess the maintainer and/or
core teams would probably choose to follow. I would not want to try
to decide this on a supermajority.
> Note: Personally, I would very much prefer that upstream accepted
> https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154 and removed the remaining
> insults (if any), so we could put all of this behind us.
That would indeed be great. But it does not seem to be likely.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: