Re: CoC policy for package contents (was: Re: Can the community team remove packages or kick me out for not removing packages?)
e
On 2025-07-21 13:02:32, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 04:34:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > The standard that we hold *ourselves* to is considerably more than just
> > "don't be racist" for any definition of racist. The code of conduct we
> > passed via GR says:
> >
> > 1. Be respectful
> >
> > In a project the size of Debian, inevitably there will be people with
> > whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that,
> > but even so, remain respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor
> > behaviour or personal attacks, and a community in which people feel
> > threatened is not a healthy community.
> >
> > I think that's the relevant point, and respectful is a much higher
> > standard than simply "not racist." It also, directly to your point,
> > applies to behavior towards anyone in the project.
> >
> > But that's not directly relevant to the contents of *packages*, and
> > therefore not particularly useful for resolving the point of this thread.
>
> This is an accurate statement, I would think.
>
> When I wrote the code of conduct, I did not make it explicit that I
> thought it was not meant to apply to the contents of packages, but I
> think that anyone who reads it can understand that this is the case by
> the language used.
>
> However, I think it's clear by now that we need a project-wide consensus
> on what policies apply to the contents of packages. This discussion
> keeps popping up, and we don't really have a good answer, since we never
> had a GR about the subject.
>
> I think we should, so hence my posting this to -vote. Please follow up
> there.
This is an excellent proposal, thank you for the email.
> I can see four options that would hold relevancy in a vote like this:
>
> - The code of conduct applies, unmodified, to all source code in all our
> packages
> - The code of conduct does not apply to any contents of any of our
> packages, and no alternative code of conduct is required (i.e.,
> everything is allowed for our packages)
>
> I do not believe either of these two options are appropriate, but
> they're opinions that someone could validly hold.
>
> - The code of conduct applies to all program messages or documentation
> texts that could be seen by a user in the normal use of a Debian
> system, as well as to anything written by a Debian developer for the
> Debian project. However, the following exceptions apply:
> - Quotes by historic people when provided in appropriate context,
> - Historic texts that are widely disemminated outside of Debian.
This sounds good (with the later updates you mention in a follow-up
email), but I think this following paragraph hides a problem. Or, at
least, a problem for me. Inline below:
> The main paragraph mentions "program messages (...) that could be seen
> by a user in the normal use of a Debian system", which does not
> encompass things like offensive messages in source code comments, or
> problematic variable names. This is not an accident; we are not the
> morality police, and I think it serves no purpose for us to try to patch
Here you say that we (the Debian project) does not want to be a morality
police, in other words we would be somewhat neutral, but then
immediately follow with:
> out code of conduct-violating things in upstream source code. This is
> not because I think things like that are not a problem; rather, because
> I think it is a fight that should be fought upstream, not in Debian.
I.e. we just can't afford to be the morality police, but we agree with
it and wish someone would do it.
Now, I don't think (fortunes-*-off excepted) that so far this has been a
significant problem in Debian, but this raises the question: do we
actually want to push for it (enforcing the current morality standards,
which can change over time), just in a limited basis, or do we want to
be neutral, and ship software as-is?
My point is here that setting a CoC for package data is just a proxy for
what we actually want, which I'm not sure is clear (to me; it might
already be to other people). If it is, then deriving the CoC for
packages from it should be rather straightforward.
I have a preference for being neutral, because anything than non-neutral
has the risk of causing downstream problems - which morality standard?
what do we do if the standards differ between countries? who judges it?
what do we do when the standards change? etc., but at the same time I
ack that maybe being neutral is a wishful dream, and that the situation
might actually be simpler than I think.
> Meanwhile, we should not remove packages from Debian just because
> there's one four-letter word directed at a particular person in a fringe
> comment in a barely-used part of the source code.
>
> The first exception would allow for things like quotes from Mein Kampf
> in a fortunes-off package or in a package that generally discusses the
> atrocities committed by the Nazis and provides the quote for context;
> the second one would allow things like religious texts or medieval
> literature.
>
> I considered adding an exception for "quotes that are in a package
> explicitly marked as not following this rule" to allow for fortunes-off
> packages containing anything the maintainer thinks is reasonable; but I
> am not sure that it would be welcomed by most people in our community,
> and also think that this opens the door to far too much, and I would
> rather have a rule that sets explicit exceptions for particular types of
> offensive contents like I did before. I would be open to adding more
> exceptions if they're reasonable, these are just the two that I can
> think of right now.
>
> Finally, there is also,
>
> - The code of conduct does not apply to the contents of any of our
> packages, but a code of contents should be written that will apply to
> that.
>
> This last option is a lot of work, and I'm quite sure I do not have the
> time or inclination to do any of that. I think that anyone proposing
> this type of alternative should make sure that they have a text to go
> with it, otherwise we're discussing hypotheticals rather than solutions.
I personally am split between option 3, even with the later updates in the
thread, and option 4. But ack that 4 is a lot of work.
> I intend to make this a formal GR proposal with the third option in the
> above list a few weeks from now, unless the thread is still full-on and
> productive by then.
Thank you, I really appreciate this.
regards,
iustin
Reply to: