Hi Wouter, I think that you and I are actually in agreement.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 06:06:34PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 02:28:22PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 07:11:11PM +0200, Dominik George wrote: > > > >The mission you have chosen for yourself, then, is to identify all those > > > >things in the Debian distribution that are not constitutive of an > > > >operating system. > > > > > > That is a major part of the work of a Debian Developer, and the > > > ftp-master team. > > > > > But we have established criteria, > > We have not. > We do and the point that I was making was that the FTP masters have criteria for acceptance/rejection of packages from the archive (describing the handling of a number of different situations). By my statement I was trying to communicate that the FTP masters are not charged with policing the content of the archive for "offensive" content and that their focus is, and should remain, on the duties connected with their established criteria. Paul did respond and pointed out that there are established criteria, but that those criteria do not represent everything that the FTP masters consider in the accept/reject process. However, even that being the case it doesn't change the point that I made. > https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct.en starts off with: > > "The Debian Project, the producers of the Debian system, have adopted a > code of conduct for participants to its mailinglists, IRC channels and > other modes of communication within the project." > > Packaged software is not a "mode of communication within the project". > The code of conduct, therefore, does not apply to it. > I agree 100% here. It is the only sensible way to interpret the Code of Conduct and its intended application. > We may decide that certain language is inappropriate in our packages, > and if so, you can start censoring packages in the archive under the > code of conduct. I made a similar suggestion, though in a more oblique way: ======================================== That would seem to be the sort of question that needs to be resolved adequately, so that we can stop abusing the Code of Conduct in this way. There are technical reasons for packages to be rejected or removed, and there are non-technical reasons (currently, things like license, abandoned, etc). It would be necessary to add a new non-technical criteria that described the boundaries with sufficient clarity to allow the responsible parties to evaluate the various situations against those criteria/boundaries. Even something as simple as "a package may be rejected and/or removed if its contents or some subset thereof would reasonably be considered a violation of the Code of Conduct if directed at an individual or group via a means otherwise subject to the Code of Conduct." ======================================== > I make no statement as to whether I believe that is the > right course of action at this point; bring it to a GR and you will see. > The same can be said for me. > Absent that action, however, the code of conduct does not apply to > relevant content of packages in the archive. > Agreed. That is also why I have sent a message to #1024501 asking if it can be closed. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez
