On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 07:02:27PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote: > > OK. With respect to Branden, Sam, Rodrigo Sanchez and Wouter - this isn't > *just* a free speech matter and Debian isn't particularly censoring content. > I don't view the proposed removal of fortunes-off as censorship. Rather, it represents a misuse of the Code of Conduct (at least in its current formulation).
> That being said: In some sense, the Code of Conduct governs how we behave > with > respect to the outside world and definitely colours how we appear there to > Debian outsiders. We have a Code of Conduct and folk expect us to follow it. > And I would propose that folks expect just as much that we won't misuse, abuse, or weaponize the Code of Conduct. Even if others don't expect that, it's what I expect. I hope that I am not the only one. [SNIP a whole bunch of reasons.] You brought up a multitude of things here. Apart from the point about freedom of speech in the US, all of them seem valid points to raise in connection with answering the question "should this package be removed?" The fact that very few people use it, that essentially nobody maintains it, that upstream and downstream support for it is now gone, and so forth. I certainly do not object to a WNPP bug along the lines of "by all appearances, this package seems to be abandoned both inside and outside of Debian. In X months, if nobody has stepped up and taken over maintainership (including upstream), then its removal well be requested." What I do object to in this case is the value judgment* as the basis for the removal and the misuse of the Code of Conduct. If there is a gap such that we require the ability to remove packages for reasons other than those for which packages are customarily removed, then let's by all means discuss the criteria, agree on them, and then act. Regards, -Roberto * No need to rehash all of that stuff about values, culture, differences and so on. But suffice it to say that the packages in question do not align with my personal values. However, I am not arguing for continued inclusion of these packages based on values. Rather, I am arguing against setting (continuing?) a precedent of improper removal of packages. -- Roberto C. Sánchez
