Re: CoC policy for package contents

[Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org>]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 03:28:16PM +0200, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Ilu <ilulu@gmx.net> writes:
> 
> > I'm not sure whether developing a Code of Acceptable Content policy at
> > this point in time is a good idea though.
> 
> I'll go much further than that, and say that I believe it's an
> exceptionally bad idea. 
> 
> As Debian Developers, we commit to adherence to a set of core common
> values, which are expressed in our Social Contract.  None of those
> values clearly lead us to need a policy governing package content on any
> axis other than compliance with the DFSG.
> 
> If external forces, like laws, force us to elide some content or come up
> with additional complications in our distribution mechanisms as US law
> on crypto export once did, then fine, we'll deal with those when we
> must.  But trying to apply some sort of moral code to package content,
> or offering to avoid offending individuals or groups with the software
> we distribute, feels likely to be directly in conflict with DFSG 5, "No
> Discrimination Against Persons or Groups", and/or DFSG 6, "No
> Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".
> 
> It is at best a VERY slippery slope given our broad differences of
> opinion about what is and is not offensive, that I think we should
> completely avoid.  

The problem with this entire email (and other ones like it elsewhere in
the thread) is that it ignores that we are already there.

It is my understanding that fortunes packages with so called 'offensive'
contents are being removed from the archive for code of conduct
reasons[1]. The debian changelog aside, this was never the intent of
the code of conduct, and that means that the code of conduct is being
abused, today, as a sort of code of acceptable conduct.

When I said upthread that I thought we should apply the code of conduct
to some parts of our package archive, it was because I bekieve (and a
member of the conduct team stated tey agree with that position) that
things like the debian changelog qualify as Debian conduct and thus fall
under the CoC. When a package sprouts insults our users or at Debian in
general, I think we should take reasonable efforts to switch that
behavior off (e.g., by not shipping sudo with the 'insults' feature on
by default), but we shouldn't require extensive patching to do so, and
we shouldn't exclude packages from the archive for that reason.

Yet, fortunes-off packages have been and are being removed, against the
package maintainer's explicit wishes, for these reasons. This means that
we already do have an effective code of acceptable conduct, decided by
the release team and not the project at large, and I think that is
wrong.

I want us to have a vote on this subject so everyone agrees on what is
expected, but I would want the outcome of that vote to make it clear
that, with perhaps a few exceptions as stated above, the code of conduct
does *not* apply to the archive and removing packages for that reason is
wrong.

But make no mistake about it: the status quo is not "we have no code of
acceptable conduct". The status quo is that we do.

[1] I say 'understanding' because I did not actually check the
    communication from the release team that happened when these
    packages were being removed, so all I know is second hand
    information that may be inaccurate. Even so, that would imply that
    there is some confusion about this subject, which is a similar
    problem that a vote could solve, too.

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22