Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
The Anti Harassment Team must be disbanded immediately and without recourse
as its name is offensive. It contains the word "ass." Unless of course it
is a reference to the intelligence of its members.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:02:34 +0100 =?UTF-8?Q?Mart=c3=adn_Ferrari?= <
tin...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team, as our input has
> been requested on this issue.
>
> Our understanding, after reading the mail threads and bug reports, is
> that the package in its current shape is against the Debian CoC ("be
> respectful") -- while it's not a "flagrant" violation,
>
> As Gregor Herrmann eloquently[1] put it, it's "not ok to use the boobs
> theme for a web scraper or other software unrelated to boobs [sic]
> themselves, where its only function is to make a small group of users
> giggle while objectifying, offending or boring the rest of the world."
>
> We appreciate uploading a new version without the insults (and thank
> Jonathan Dowland for his efforts[2][3] on this front). Please note that
> the insults and homophobic language *is* a flagrant violation of
> Debian's CoC and in our opinion, Debian should not ship new software
> including them.
>
> We believe the next release should not contain the package in question
> in its current state; our recommendation would be to either work with
> upstream on correcting these issues, forking and/or patching it, or just
> removing the package. There is still enough time to find a solution that
> respects our users and our community while keeping a useful piece of
> software in the archive. We would also encourage all parties to be
> respectful, and to observe the community needs for a healthy environment
> where such puerile humour taken at the expense of other people is not
> acceptable any more.
>
> If this dispute cannot be resolved amicably and timely, we believe the
> FTP-master team can -and should- unilaterally remove the package from
> the archive. We think that invoking the CTTE or calling a GR would
> unnecessarily cause more disruption and draw energy from the community.
>
>
> Martín Ferrari, on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team.
>
>
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00428.html
> [2]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/228
> [3]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154
>
> --
> Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
>
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Pandering to the monkeys is hardly a way to run your organization. Have you
checked how many OTHER packages are named with the letters "boob" in your
repo? Please. The correct decision is to tell the monkeys to get a life.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 01:02:34 +0100 =?UTF-8?Q?Mart=c3=adn_Ferrari?= <
tin...@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team, as our input has
> been requested on this issue.
>
> Our understanding, after reading the mail threads and bug reports, is
> that the package in its current shape is against the Debian CoC ("be
> respectful") -- while it's not a "flagrant" violation,
>
> As Gregor Herrmann eloquently[1] put it, it's "not ok to use the boobs
> theme for a web scraper or other software unrelated to boobs [sic]
> themselves, where its only function is to make a small group of users
> giggle while objectifying, offending or boring the rest of the world."
>
> We appreciate uploading a new version without the insults (and thank
> Jonathan Dowland for his efforts[2][3] on this front). Please note that
> the insults and homophobic language *is* a flagrant violation of
> Debian's CoC and in our opinion, Debian should not ship new software
> including them.
>
> We believe the next release should not contain the package in question
> in its current state; our recommendation would be to either work with
> upstream on correcting these issues, forking and/or patching it, or just
> removing the package. There is still enough time to find a solution that
> respects our users and our community while keeping a useful piece of
> software in the archive. We would also encourage all parties to be
> respectful, and to observe the community needs for a healthy environment
> where such puerile humour taken at the expense of other people is not
> acceptable any more.
>
> If this dispute cannot be resolved amicably and timely, we believe the
> FTP-master team can -and should- unilaterally remove the package from
> the archive. We think that invoking the CTTE or calling a GR would
> unnecessarily cause more disruption and draw energy from the community.
>
>
> Martín Ferrari, on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team.
>
>
> [1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00428.html
> [2]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/228
> [3]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154
>
> --
> Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
>
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Dear Martín et al., > For further clarification, this means that we believe there is time > until the freeze to solve this issue Indeed and I remain optimistic that this can be achieved before we reach for the RM "hammer". Romain, can you chime in here? Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Chris et al, On 26/10/18 15:31, Chris Lamb wrote: >> I am concerned about the lack of progress. I would be grateful >> for advice on what I should do next. > > I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to correct > me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this issue and > thus I have not been taking action on it myself as leader@. We were asked for an opinion on this matter, which we expressed about a month ago in the BTS. We think we should not get involved in the minutiae of how this is solved, but our original recommendation still remains (quoting from our previous email): > We believe the next release should not contain the package in > question in its current state [..] > If this dispute cannot be resolved amicably and timely, we believe > the FTP-master team can -and should- unilaterally remove the package > from the archive. For further clarification, this means that we believe there is time until the freeze to solve this issue, and if it is not solved by then, the package should be removed from testing and unstable. -- Martín signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
isn't there something more productive to do with y'alls time?
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:48 AM Ian Jackson <
ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> > I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to
> > correct me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this
> > issue and thus I have not been taking action on it myself as
> > leader@.
> >
> > I therefore also eagerly their opinion and/or correction this
> > matter.
>
> Please see the AH team's response here:
>
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907199#47
>
> ISTM that the AH team have done a very helpful job, providing a clear
> opinion about both: (i) the suitability for Debian of the package in
> its current state; and (ii) the proper way to implement that,
> sociopolitically.
>
> Personally even though I think this package is unacceptable in its
> current state, our tradition in Debian would normally be to leave the
> package in old releases and remove it only from new ones.
>
> So, should the next thing be an RM bug requesting the package be
> removed from unstable ?
>
> Ian.
>
> --
> Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
>
> If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
> a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
>
>
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to
> correct me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this
> issue and thus I have not been taking action on it myself as
> leader@.
>
> I therefore also eagerly their opinion and/or correction this
> matter.
Please see the AH team's response here:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907199#47
ISTM that the AH team have done a very helpful job, providing a clear
opinion about both: (i) the suitability for Debian of the package in
its current state; and (ii) the proper way to implement that,
sociopolitically.
Personally even though I think this package is unacceptable in its
current state, our tradition in Debian would normally be to leave the
package in old releases and remove it only from new ones.
So, should the next thing be an RM bug requesting the package be
removed from unstable ?
Ian.
--
Ian JacksonThese opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Dear Ian, > > I look forward to hearing from the Debian maintainer, who I think is > > the first point of contact for the management of the package in > > Debian. > > I am concerned about the lack of progress. I would be grateful for > advice on what I should do next. I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to correct me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this issue and thus I have not been taking action on it myself as leader@. I therefore also eagerly their opinion and/or correction this matter. Best wishes, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Martín Ferrari writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team, as our input has
> been requested on this issue.
Thanks for your considered and helpful response.
>our recommendation would be to either work with
> upstream on correcting these issues, forking and/or patching it, or just
> removing the package. There is still enough time to find a solution that
> respects our users and our community while keeping a useful piece of
> software in the archive.
That would be great.
Speaking personally I am definitely willing to talk to anyone about
this but ... experience suggests that, despite my best efforts, my
communication style does not lead to happiness in these kind of
situations. I think it would be best if someone else would take the
lead in negotiations.
OTOH if it is necessary to diverge from upstream: I have a lot of
experience with build systems and version control systems and could
probably help with the technical work. I would be tempted to write a
git-filter-branch script, because that would produce a
probably-useable git history and make it easier to handle future
upstream updates.
I am happy to do that technical work if we can agree, within Debian
(including, obviously, the Debian maintainer) on the basic shape.
I look forward to hearing from the Debian maintainer, who I think is
the first point of contact for the management of the package in
Debian.
Thanks,
Ian.
Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?
Hi all,
I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team, as our input has
been requested on this issue.
Our understanding, after reading the mail threads and bug reports, is
that the package in its current shape is against the Debian CoC ("be
respectful") -- while it's not a "flagrant" violation,
As Gregor Herrmann eloquently[1] put it, it's "not ok to use the boobs
theme for a web scraper or other software unrelated to boobs [sic]
themselves, where its only function is to make a small group of users
giggle while objectifying, offending or boring the rest of the world."
We appreciate uploading a new version without the insults (and thank
Jonathan Dowland for his efforts[2][3] on this front). Please note that
the insults and homophobic language *is* a flagrant violation of
Debian's CoC and in our opinion, Debian should not ship new software
including them.
We believe the next release should not contain the package in question
in its current state; our recommendation would be to either work with
upstream on correcting these issues, forking and/or patching it, or just
removing the package. There is still enough time to find a solution that
respects our users and our community while keeping a useful piece of
software in the archive. We would also encourage all parties to be
respectful, and to observe the community needs for a healthy environment
where such puerile humour taken at the expense of other people is not
acceptable any more.
If this dispute cannot be resolved amicably and timely, we believe the
FTP-master team can -and should- unilaterally remove the package from
the archive. We think that invoking the CTTE or calling a GR would
unnecessarily cause more disruption and draw energy from the community.
Martín Ferrari, on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team.
[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00428.html
[2]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/228
[3]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154
--
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
