19 juillet 2018 17:15 "Jonathan Dowland" <j...@debian.org> a écrit:
> Thanks Marc for raising this on -devel. I am the person who originally > brought attention to the package on -private. I did so there, because > I did not feel confident in doing so in a public space initially. It > wasn't my intention to irritate upstream by talking behind their back, > so I'm sorry for that. > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > >> I think the names contribute to a "laddish" environment where sexual >> objectification of women can be seen to be OK, and that this is >> something we should try and avoid in Debian. I say this without >> implying any malign intent on the authors part - they've been named >> thus for some time now, and what was once considered OK is not >> necessarily still considered OK (that's progress!). > > I'm quoting this part because I think it's an excellent summary of the > problem. > >> I think it would be good if the names were changed. > > I think we ought to more concretely determine what changes we wish to > take place. To do this properly I need to spend more time looking at the > package in more detail, so what follows is just my initial feelings. I > welcome feedback. For now I suggest we hash it out in mail, let's see > how well this works. We may have to consider something more structured > such as debating over a concrete PR, or a DEP proposal. > > As a pre-amble side-note, some issues of offending users with homophobic > language have been addressed upstream, and I think we should aim to > carry these patches in stable/testing/unstable. (I don't think we have > processes for patching oldstable or o-o-stable, please correct me if I'm > wrong. I also haven't yet verified that these patches are necessary in > all of our suites.)[1] > > My ideal outcome is that we come to an agreement on a series of steps > that results in the software *upstream* no longer objectifying women, and > we continue to carry the software in Debian, and that in doing so > both upstream and Debian benefit (it *is* useful software). > > A less ideal outcome, but still acceptable from my POV, would be that > upstream make no changes, but we carry patches in Debian to address the > issue. This is, of course, so long as we have maintainers willing to do > that. Since I raised the objection, I am prepared to volunteer towards > that effort, should it be necessary, and for what little that's worth. > > So some of the changes then: > > The software has a long established name "weboob" which is an acronym of > sorts for "web outside of browsers". Whether or not the acronym was ever > chosen to allude to breasts in the first place, I don't know. The > software has a domain name weboob.org which is their established home on > the Internet and WWW. Changing the entire project name I think would be > impractical and impose real costs on upstream (e.g. new domain > registration(s)). If it was crystal clear that this name was > deliberately offensive then I would argue that this should happen > non-the-less, but IMHO at least, it's not, and I think the issues with > weboob itself, in isolation, can be addressed simply by adding a hyphen. > I propose, that the package name in Debian grows a hyphen: web-oob. The > placement is consistent with the acronym (web is not an acronym, it's a > full word, the rest is an acronym), the coincidence (or not) with "boob" > is at least disguised. It's close enough to the old name to preserve > word-of-mouth, awareness of the tool, search engines finding it, etc. I > would be very encouraged if upstream were to consider this, too. > I like this idea :-) > The binary names within are far more problematic. A full enumeration of > the ones that IMHO must change will have to wait for a follow-up email. > But it would certainly include "wetboobs", "boobsize", "boobtracker" and > "flatboob". If the names are to change, I don't think there's any reason > they should not change significantly; merely adding a hyphen would not > be sufficient. I will attempt to suggest some names in a follow-up. > > A technical drawback of changing names may be that scripts reference the > older names break. More work to be done on this proposal is to determine > to which programs this is likely to be an issue. Should it be an issue, > then I do not object to the offensive names being provided as > compatibility symlinks, so long as they are shipped in a separate binary > package, using the already-established practice of suffixing > "-offensive" to the binary package name. > I'm wondering, wouldn't renaming the package be a solution there too ? Based on the examples set by the packages fortunes-*off, wouldn't "web-oob-off", "web-oob-qt-off", "python-web-oob" and "python-web-oob-core" be a way to solve this problem ? For the people sensitive to this kind of material, I guess we don't want them to read the whole package description before realizing that this is not something they would want to use. So I guess the package descriptions would have to be changed as well to explain immediately the "-off" part before explaining anything else. It would allow keeping the same content, keeping it compatible with upstream. I'm asking because I'm currently considering writing an application that would use Web-oob, and anything that would break the compatibility could obviously make my life harder. > I'll stop here for now, plenty to discuss already. > > [1] https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/228 > > -- > ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ > ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland > ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net > ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.