Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Policy in this case would document the convention of using -offensive
> for packages that are split along those lines *by the maintainer*.  I
> agree that we certainly shouldn't attempt to define what is and isn't
> offensive in Policy and leave that up to the maintainer.  But it
> sounds like we have a package naming convention for this specific type
> of package split, and the standardization of the naming convention
> (-offensive instead of -off or -dirty or -nsfw or whatever other thing
> someone might come up with) is within the traditional grounds of
> Policy.

This is what I meant.  Apologies for my brevity.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Gunnar Wolf]

Ian Jackson dijo [Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:32:40PM +]:
> So to be concrete, how about this:
> 
>   N. Packages with potentially offensive content
> 
>   As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
>   contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
>   any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split
>   out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain
>   parts can do so).  In making these decisions you should take into
>   account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement.
> 
>   If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
>   a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
>   by adding "-offensive".  For example, "cowsay" vs
>   "cowsay-offensive".  In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>   be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>   or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
> 
> This is hopefully vague enough that everyone can agree it ?

I agree to this wording.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Russ Allbery]

"Iain R. Learmonth"  writes:

> If there was to be a policy, it should include something along the lines
> of "maintainers should tend towards the least offensive build options"
> but worded in such a way that compiler optimisations and hardening
> options are not subject to an offensiveness rating.

This is the sort of thing I'd really prefer not to put into Policy.

Do we feel like we currently have a problem with maintainer judgement in
this area that warrants some intervention?  The original thread was just
an observation about a less-than-ideal naming convention, which is a
simple technical fix.  Figuring out what is and isn't offensive is much
more muddled, and if we don't have a problem, it might not be worth trying
to construct a solution to the harder problem.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Ian Jackson]

Phil Wyett writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive"):
> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
> subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
> particular package.

I think this is gross overkill for the very small number of packages
for which it is relevant.  Encoding the situation in the package name,
and/or describing any issues in prose in the Description, seem like
proportionate responses.

> * Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
> * Seen on packages.d.o, PTS and query by apt etc. for package.
> * Should not be auto installed as a recommends etc.

If you think I am wrong then the next steps would be:

1. Make a properly documented technical proposal for where this
  metadata would be found and how it would be transferred and what
  format it would be in.

2. Write proof-of-concept patches for at least some of apt-search,
  apt-get install, p.d.o, etc., to allow the user to specify a policy,
  and implmenet that policy.

3. Write proof-of-concept patches for at least some packages,
  adding the metadata.

I think even (1) is far too much work.

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.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Phil Wyett]

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 21:29 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> 
> > In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should
> > be
> > done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> > social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
> > subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
> > particular package.
> 
> Some rating related resources are at:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/OpenRating
> 
> > * Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
> 
> Personally I think a debtags/screenshots style service would be better here.
> 
> > * Seen on packages.d.o, PTS and query by apt etc. for package.
> > * Should not be auto installed as a recommends etc.
> 
> Preferably configurable, perhaps by installing packages with standard names.
> 

Hi,

Thanks for the link Paul.

The Open Rating debtags idea I find far more appealing than package naming with
the offensive or other suffix.

Regards

Phil

-- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

Web: https://kathenas.org

GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

Twitter: kathenasorg

Instagram: kathenasorg

GPG: 1B97 6556 913F 73F3 9C9B 25C4 2961 D9B6 2017 A57A

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Michael Stone]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:37:57PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:

I agree. Using the package name for labelling feels odd.


It also seems like a reasonable and practical solution, more so than 
some overly complicated whizz-bang tagging scheme that the target 
audience will likely not understand.


Mike Stone

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Geert Stappers]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 02:37:57PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 22.11.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > 
> >> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should 
> >> be
> >> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> >> social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
> >> subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
> >> particular package.
> > 
> > Some rating related resources are at:
> > 
> > https://wiki.debian.org/OpenRating
> > 
> >> * Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
> > 
> > Personally I think a debtags/screenshots style service would be better here.
> 
> I agree. Using the package name for labelling feels odd.
> 

+1


> Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
> universe are pointed away from Earth?
> 

So true




Groeten
Geert Stappers

 [1] http://www.pegi.info

-- 
Leven en laten leven

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Steve McIntyre]

Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>So to be concrete, how about this:
>
>  N. Packages with potentially offensive content
>
>  As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
>  contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
>  any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split
>  out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain
>  parts can do so).  In making these decisions you should take into
>  account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement.
>
>  If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
>  a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
>  by adding "-offensive".  For example, "cowsay" vs
>  "cowsay-offensive".  In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>  be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>  or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
>
>This is hopefully vague enough that everyone can agree it ?

Looks good to me, yes.

>> Maybe we can experiment with some voluntary guidelines for maintainers
>> to work out any bugs *before* we merge it with policy?
>
>IME trying to write guidelines like this often involves arguments over
>hypothetical or unreal situations, and can raise a lot of concerns
>that don't need to be resolved in practice to solve real issues.

Agreed.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Michael Biebl]

Am 22.11.2017 um 14:29 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
> 
>> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
>> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
>> social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
>> subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
>> particular package.
> 
> Some rating related resources are at:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/OpenRating
> 
>> * Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
> 
> Personally I think a debtags/screenshots style service would be better here.

I agree. Using the package name for labelling feels odd.

-- 
Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the
universe are pointed away from Earth?



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Paul Wise]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:

> In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
> done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
> social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
> subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
> particular package.

Some rating related resources are at:

https://wiki.debian.org/OpenRating

> * Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.

Personally I think a debtags/screenshots style service would be better here.

> * Seen on packages.d.o, PTS and query by apt etc. for package.
> * Should not be auto installed as a recommends etc.

Preferably configurable, perhaps by installing packages with standard names.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:23:12AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content,
not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
"-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.


so you're proposing to add this technical suffix to all bible and php
packages? and emacs of course.


No; I'm proposing we document in policy what is currently already
happening (some people have already added -off suffixes to packages they
think are offensive) so that if anyone else chooses to do the same, we
are at least consistent. (Modulo using -offensive instead of -off which
is just too ambiguous).


once you are using this label you *are* defining offensive.


You need to take this up with the package maintainers who are already
doing this.


--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Phil Wyett]

On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 08:49 +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > no, please, no.
> > 
> > policy should document technical terms.
> > 
> > whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
> > more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
> > should not be included in -policy.
> 
> This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive 
> content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.
> 

Hi,

My two pence worth...

In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
particular package.

Not an exhaustive list...

* Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
* Seen on packages.d.o, PTS and query by apt etc. for package.
* Should not be auto installed as a recommends etc.

[1] http://www.pegi.info

Regards

Phil

-- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

Web: https://kathenas.org

GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

Twitter: kathenasorg

Instagram: kathenasorg

GPG: 1B97 6556 913F 73F3 9C9B 25C4 2961 D9B6 2017 A57A

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Iain R. Learmonth]

Hi,

On 22/11/17 12:32, Ian Jackson wrote:
> So to be concrete, how about this:
> 
>   N. Packages with potentially offensive content
> 
>   As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
>   contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
>   any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split
>   out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain
>   parts can do so).  In making these decisions you should take into
>   account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement.
> 
>   If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
>   a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
>   by adding "-offensive".  For example, "cowsay" vs
>   "cowsay-offensive".  In this situation the "-offensive" package can
>   be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
>   or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.
> 
> This is hopefully vague enough that everyone can agree it ?

+1

Thanks,
Iain.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Ian Jackson]

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to 
-offensive"):
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content,
> > not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> > "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.
> 
> so you're proposing to add this technical suffix to all bible and php
> packages? and emacs of course.

No, we are proposing that _if_ the maintainer of the bible packages
wishes to mark some or all of the bible as offensive, they should name
the package "bible-kjv-offensive" rather thatn "bible-kjv-off" or
"bible-kjv-heresy" or something.

> once you are using this label you *are* defining offensive.

It would be the maintainer who decides what is offensive.

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.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Ian Jackson]

Iain R. Learmonth writes ("Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to 
-offensive"):
> I may have been not entirely serious in that example. As the insults are
> not enabled by default, most users will never see them, though they are
> compiled in.
> 
> If there was to be a policy, it should include something along the lines
> of "maintainers should tend towards the least offensive build options"
> but worded in such a way that compiler optimisations and hardening
> options are not subject to an offensiveness rating.

I'm not sure we want to put that kind of recommendation in policy.
Mostly, it's a matter of good judgement.  (Maybe the policy could
refer to the GR-agreed diversity statement.)

So to be concrete, how about this:

  N. Packages with potentially offensive content

  As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the
  contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs
  any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split
  out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain
  parts can do so).  In making these decisions you should take into
  account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement.

  If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into
  a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name
  by adding "-offensive".  For example, "cowsay" vs
  "cowsay-offensive".  In this situation the "-offensive" package can
  be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended
  or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default.

This is hopefully vague enough that everyone can agree it ?

> Maybe we can experiment with some voluntary guidelines for maintainers
> to work out any bugs *before* we merge it with policy?

IME trying to write guidelines like this often involves arguments over
hypothetical or unreal situations, and can raise a lot of concerns
that don't need to be resolved in practice to solve real issues.

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.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Iain R. Learmonth]

Hi,

On 22/11/17 11:31, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
>> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
>> politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not
>> defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive.
>> Obviously we should allow for a transitional package here...
> 
> Pretty much overkill - and for sudo you actively need to turn on insults
> before it spits out any.

This really was only intended as a ridiculous example, not a serious
suggestion.

Thanks,
Iain.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 14864 March 1977, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
> politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not
> defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive.
> Obviously we should allow for a transitional package here...

Pretty much overkill - and for sudo you actively need to turn on insults
before it spits out any.

-- 
bye, Joerg

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Iain R. Learmonth]

Hi,

On 22/11/17 11:17, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> That seems like unnecessary complexity and work, to me. I'd be OK with
> either letting the package be as it is now, or to build it without the
> "non-PC" insults. Doesn't seem worth it to have two packages for this.

I may have been not entirely serious in that example. As the insults are
not enabled by default, most users will never see them, though they are
compiled in.

If there was to be a policy, it should include something along the lines
of "maintainers should tend towards the least offensive build options"
but worded in such a way that compiler optimisations and hardening
options are not subject to an offensiveness rating.

I agree with the idea that Debian should generally not be offensive to
its users unless they've asked for it, but also think that asking for it
should be available to users.

Maybe we can experiment with some voluntary guidelines for maintainers
to work out any bugs *before* we merge it with policy?

Thanks,
Iain.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 08:49:11AM +, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive content,
> not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.

so you're proposing to add this technical suffix to all bible and php
packages? and emacs of course.

sorry, but…

once you are using this label you *are* defining offensive.


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:10:20AM +, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> Currently, as far as I can tell, sudo is build without PC_INSULTS. We
> should probably rename the sudo package to sudo-offensive.
> 
> This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
> politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not
> defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive.
> 
> Obviously we should allow for a transitional package here...

That seems like unnecessary complexity and work, to me. I'd be OK with
either letting the package be as it is now, or to build it without the
"non-PC" insults. Doesn't seem worth it to have two packages for this.

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Iain R. Learmonth]

Hi,

On 22/11/17 08:49, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive
> content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.

Currently, as far as I can tell, sudo is build without PC_INSULTS. We
should probably rename the sudo package to sudo-offensive.

This option is defined in the source code as "Define to 1 to replace
politically incorrect insults with less offensive ones." and so by not
defining this option, the package is explicitly built to be offensive.

Obviously we should allow for a transitional package here...

(I'm sure there are many other examples in Debian, just highlighting
that it's not just those 3 packages.)

Thanks,
Iain.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +, Holger Levsen wrote:

no, please, no.

policy should document technical terms.

whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
should not be included in -policy.


This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive 
content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that

"-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.

--

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Russ Allbery]

Holger Levsen  writes:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:

>>> Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever
>>> agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the
>>> mailing list archive.  Wiki? policy?

>> Policy.

> no, please, no.

> policy should document technical terms.

> whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
> more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
> should not be included in -policy.

> what's offensive to you, might be my everyday. IOW: what's offensive to
> you (or me) might be my|your everyday.

Policy in this case would document the convention of using -offensive for
packages that are split along those lines *by the maintainer*.  I agree
that we certainly shouldn't attempt to define what is and isn't offensive
in Policy and leave that up to the maintainer.  But it sounds like we have
a package naming convention for this specific type of package split, and
the standardization of the naming convention (-offensive instead of -off
or -dirty or -nsfw or whatever other thing someone might come up with) is
within the traditional grounds of Policy.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Holger Levsen]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 02:56:36PM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> > Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever
> > agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the
> > mailing list archive.  Wiki? policy?
> Policy.

no, please, no.

policy should document technical terms.

whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
should not be included in -policy.

what's offensive to you, might be my everyday. IOW: what's offensive to
you (or me) might be my|your everyday.


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Sean Whitton]

Hello,

On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez wrote:

> I agree.

Me too.  I was not aware of the -off convention, and couldn't have
guessed it.

> Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever
> agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the
> mailing list archive.  Wiki? policy?

Policy.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive

[Arturo Borrero Gonzalez]

On 21 November 2017 at 14:01, Ian Jackson
 wrote:
> We have an (AFAICT informal) convention that packages with offensive
> content, or content in questionable taste, should have names ending in
> -off.  This abbreviation is unnecessary, and increases the chances
> that someone will install such a thing by mistake.
>
> (If cowsay-off had been called cowsay-offensive, #882085 would
> probably have been discovered rather sooner and in a rather better
> way.)
>
> I would like to suggest that we rename all such packages to
> "foo-offensive" for buster.  (Also, the highest dependency on such a
> package from a non-"-offensive" package should be Suggests.)
>
> AFAICT 3 packages are affected: fortunes (and its translations),
> cowsay, and purity.
>

I agree.

Not involved in any of the packages, but I guess that whatever
agreement we make it is worth documenting elsewhere apart of the
mailing list archive.
Wiki? policy?