Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Laura Arjona Reina]

Hello all

El 26/07/18 a las 23:32, gregor herrmann escribió:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> 
>> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
>> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
> 
> For me: The context.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> 
>> What's wrong with looking at boobs?  
> 
> Nothing in general, but: context.
> 
> 
> This whole discussion reminded me of a campaign by the German project
> pinkstinks.de called "Sexy yes, sexism no":
> 
> https://pinkstinks.de/sexy-oder-sexistisch/
> 
> Summary in my words:
> 
> It's fine to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell women's
> underwear (left picture: "Bra 29 EUR").
> It's not ok to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell a chair
> (and the scantily clad woman is just decoration / an object to draw
> attention to the ad) (right picture: "Chair 199 EUR").
> I think that explains the issue of objectification quite well.
> 
> Translated to packages:
> 
> It's IMO fine to talk about and show breasts in a game which teaches
> the names of body parts to children; or in an app that helps women to
> detect early warnings signs of breast cancer; or (Ian's example) in
> software controlling sex toys; etc. Because there they are simply
> on-topic.
> 
> And it's IMO not ok to use the boobs theme for a web scraper or other
> software unrelated to boobs themselves, where its only function is
> to make a small group of users giggle while objectifying, offending
> or boring the rest of the world. 
> 

+1

I didn't contribute first to the discussion because when I catch up
reading the thread (several times during this summer) my brain is
exhausted already, and couldn't find the words. Also because mosquito
bites [1]: the inner-me debates between ignoring or using the
flamethrower; usually ignoring wins, in my case.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDd3bzA7450 - How microaggressions
are like mosquito bites • Same Difference

Thanks, Gregor.

Kind regards
-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ian Jackson]

Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> My question was more aimed what members of or contributors to the
> Debian project can do to improve the current situation, cause as you
> say Debian that means the people behind it cannot control what is
> happening outside of it.

I answered that here:

> [Ian Jackson:]
> > What concrete steps, you ask ?  Well, we could start by removing
> > gratuitous sexual references from software which has nothing to do
> > with sex.[1]
> 
> I fully agree with that.

Thanks.

> > We could also stop producing absurd (and readily and frequently
> > debunked) counterarguments to explain why this isn't a problem, or why
> > doing anything about it would lead inevitably to awful censorship,
> > etc.  (FAOD I'm not really referring to your messages here, but there
> > have been some truly silly examples in this thread.)
> 
> I feel no intention to produce such counterarguments.

My statement was not intended as an attack on specifically your own
postings.  However, Debian contributors who are otherwise valued in
our community have done, here, exactly what I describe.  We ought not
to tolerate it.

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: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 02:35:19PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

I think it would be worthwhile to file a BTS bug so it can be easily
tracked which versions of the package we distribute still carry this
bug, so I will do that.


Done here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905299


I think the next best step for this particular suggestion would be for
me to take it upstream, and, assuming it meets with some kind of
positive response, I would also be happy to work towards implementing
it. So I will raise this in upstream's Gitlab.


Done here: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154

--

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Dominique Dumont]

On Thursday, 26 July 2018 09:53:08 CEST Sune Vuorela wrote:
> The woob command would then lookup the "original" name in the mappings
> file and exec the correct one with remaining args.
> This is probably fairly low maintenance once created, but it still has
> the bad names on the file system, though hidden away out of path.

The man page would be out of sync with woob command and sub-commands. Do you 
have an idea on how to handle them ? 

All the bets

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting gregor herrmann (2018-07-27 05:32:20)
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> 
> > Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
> > Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
> 
> For me: The context.
> 
> 
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> 
> > What's wrong with looking at boobs?  
> 
> Nothing in general, but: context.
> 
> 
> This whole discussion reminded me of a campaign by the German project
> pinkstinks.de called "Sexy yes, sexism no":
> 
> https://pinkstinks.de/sexy-oder-sexistisch/
> 
> Summary in my words:
> 
> It's fine to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell women's
> underwear (left picture: "Bra 29 EUR").
> It's not ok to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell a chair
> (and the scantily clad woman is just decoration / an object to draw
> attention to the ad) (right picture: "Chair 199 EUR").
> I think that explains the issue of objectification quite well.
> 
> Translated to packages:
> 
> It's IMO fine to talk about and show breasts in a game which teaches
> the names of body parts to children; or in an app that helps women to
> detect early warnings signs of breast cancer; or (Ian's example) in
> software controlling sex toys; etc. Because there they are simply
> on-topic.
> 
> And it's IMO not ok to use the boobs theme for a web scraper or other
> software unrelated to boobs themselves, where its only function is
> to make a small group of users giggle while objectifying, offending
> or boring the rest of the world. 

Very well put!

Thanks!

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Pirate Praveen]

On July 27, 2018 3:09:35 AM GMT+05:30, Zlatan Todoric  wrote:
>
>On 7/26/18 11:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>>
>>> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
>>> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
>> For me: The context.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>>
>>> What's wrong with looking at boobs?  
>> Nothing in general, but: context.
>>
>>
>> This whole discussion reminded me of a campaign by the German project
>> pinkstinks.de called "Sexy yes, sexism no":
>>
>> https://pinkstinks.de/sexy-oder-sexistisch/
>>
>> Summary in my words:
>>
>> It's fine to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell women's
>> underwear (left picture: "Bra 29 EUR").
>> It's not ok to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell a chair
>> (and the scantily clad woman is just decoration / an object to draw
>> attention to the ad) (right picture: "Chair 199 EUR").
>> I think that explains the issue of objectification quite well.
>>
>> Translated to packages:
>>
>> It's IMO fine to talk about and show breasts in a game which teaches
>> the names of body parts to children; or in an app that helps women to
>> detect early warnings signs of breast cancer; or (Ian's example) in
>> software controlling sex toys; etc. Because there they are simply
>> on-topic.
>>
>> And it's IMO not ok to use the boobs theme for a web scraper or other
>> software unrelated to boobs themselves, where its only function is
>> to make a small group of users giggle while objectifying, offending
>> or boring the rest of the world. 
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> gregor
>>
>I hereby, second this. There is nothing for me to add or remove from
>this imho perfect statement by gregor.
>
>Z

Seems perfect to me too. Just wanted to state where I stand on the issue.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Zlatan Todoric]

On 7/26/18 11:32 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>
>> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
>> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?
> For me: The context.
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
>> What's wrong with looking at boobs?  
> Nothing in general, but: context.
>
>
> This whole discussion reminded me of a campaign by the German project
> pinkstinks.de called "Sexy yes, sexism no":
>
> https://pinkstinks.de/sexy-oder-sexistisch/
>
> Summary in my words:
>
> It's fine to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell women's
> underwear (left picture: "Bra 29 EUR").
> It's not ok to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell a chair
> (and the scantily clad woman is just decoration / an object to draw
> attention to the ad) (right picture: "Chair 199 EUR").
> I think that explains the issue of objectification quite well.
>
> Translated to packages:
>
> It's IMO fine to talk about and show breasts in a game which teaches
> the names of body parts to children; or in an app that helps women to
> detect early warnings signs of breast cancer; or (Ian's example) in
> software controlling sex toys; etc. Because there they are simply
> on-topic.
>
> And it's IMO not ok to use the boobs theme for a web scraper or other
> software unrelated to boobs themselves, where its only function is
> to make a small group of users giggle while objectifying, offending
> or boring the rest of the world. 
>
>
> Cheers,
> gregor
>
I hereby, second this. There is nothing for me to add or remove from
this imho perfect statement by gregor.

Z

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[gregor herrmann]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 13:34:19 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:

> Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
> Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?

For me: The context.


On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 03:09:45 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:

> What's wrong with looking at boobs?  

Nothing in general, but: context.


This whole discussion reminded me of a campaign by the German project
pinkstinks.de called "Sexy yes, sexism no":

https://pinkstinks.de/sexy-oder-sexistisch/

Summary in my words:

It's fine to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell women's
underwear (left picture: "Bra 29 EUR").
It's not ok to show a woman in underwear if you try to sell a chair
(and the scantily clad woman is just decoration / an object to draw
attention to the ad) (right picture: "Chair 199 EUR").
I think that explains the issue of objectification quite well.

Translated to packages:

It's IMO fine to talk about and show breasts in a game which teaches
the names of body parts to children; or in an app that helps women to
detect early warnings signs of breast cancer; or (Ian's example) in
software controlling sex toys; etc. Because there they are simply
on-topic.

And it's IMO not ok to use the boobs theme for a web scraper or other
software unrelated to boobs themselves, where its only function is
to make a small group of users giggle while objectifying, offending
or boring the rest of the world. 


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   NP: REM: Texarkana


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 15109 March 1977, Adam Borowski wrote:

>> It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
>> of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
>> software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming
>> to all people, instead of one that mirrors a wider culture which
>> discriminates against people based on their identity).
> If you put technical needs below religious ones (and this particular
> religion is especially vile), something is really wrong.  Debian is supposed
> to be inclusive for all users.  Working software is much more important than
> hurt feelings -- especially if you care about feelings of only a single
> group.

> The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes participation by
> everyone, and (by my reading) implicitly bans censorship.  You're trying to
> promote censorship, and that I protest against.

Please read
https://blog.valerieaurora.org/2017/08/15/what-white-supremacists-dont-want-you-to-know-the-paradox-of-tolerance/
and apply it here. It has a slightly different topic ( (In)tolerance ),
but most of it fits pretty damn well the point of inclusive or not.

Working software is not neccessarily much more important than hurt
feelings. Not if hurt feelings make us a worse place to be. And, unless
its "hurt feelings" of intolerant nazis[1], it doesn't matter if it's only
a single group or not. They are important. And hey, its not a just a
random group of 5 - its about half of humanity (and way to less of em as
members of our community)...

Now, can we all please stop being ridiculous and stop this thread?
Anyone who disagrees with the maintainers decision can either ignore it
or appeal to a higher body (FTPMaster, GR). More discussion won't make
it any better. Especially not as nearly all people discussing the matter
are mysteriously missing the body pieces so prominently featured in that
little-kid-selected-names of binaries.


[1] The one set of people valid to be excluded everywhere, no further
question asked. Stupid shitheads.

-- 
bye, Joerg

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ole Streicher]

Marc Haber  writes:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher 
> wrote:
>>Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
>>of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
>
> Didn't we ship aliases? Are firefox and thunderbird commonly invoked
> from scripts that might be expected to run on different distributions?

Incompabilities come in different levels: shell script compatibility is
one, but there are also package names, API or ABI, file system hierarchy
etc.

We have no basic rule to keep any of them; it is all about weighting
pros and cons.

> Technically, this will be the next "take this script, it runs
> everywhere but on Debian" which will hurt the project.

Sure. My point here is that we don't have a fixed rule "never break
third-party scripts". We (or the package maintainer) should carefully
see whether the advantage of using non-offending names outweights the
compatibility issues.

Cheers

Ole

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Alf Gaida]

Wow - we should wait a few days and there will be more comments about
this issue than users of this package. Impressive.

To be honest - i don't really like the "humor" and the names of the
package and the applications, but i fear that this heatened discussion
does more harm than the package itself.

My 2 ¢

Alf

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Michael Stone]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:16:52PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher 
wrote:

Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?


Didn't we ship aliases? Are firefox and thunderbird commonly invoked
from scripts that might be expected to run on different distributions?

Technically, this will be the next "take this script, it runs
everywhere but on Debian" which will hurt the project.


Yes, basically everyone expects the boob commands to be there and will 
be really upset when they can't find them. It's like renaming "cd" or 
something.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Marc Haber]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher 
wrote:
>Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
>of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?

Didn't we ship aliases? Are firefox and thunderbird commonly invoked
from scripts that might be expected to run on different distributions?

Technically, this will be the next "take this script, it runs
everywhere but on Debian" which will hurt the project.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 02:44:56PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:59:08 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:
> > > I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the
> > > package in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t interested in
> > > changing the names.
> > The point is that it currently is in Debian, binary names unchanged:
> 
> Yes, obviously neither FTP masters nor maintainer had a problem with the
> names.

Actually, there used to be a havesex that was renamed to havedate
because of FTP masters.

  https://lists.symlink.me/pipermail/weboob/2012-February/000511.html

Mike

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Stephan Seitz]

On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 01:59:08 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:

I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the
package in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t interested in
changing the names.

The point is that it currently is in Debian, binary names unchanged:


Yes, obviously neither FTP masters nor maintainer had a problem with the 
names.



Of course it can be changed.


Exactly. Debian has already removed packages, so it can remove weboob as 
well. The question is who can decide the removal if the maintainer 
doesn’t want to remove it? TC?


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Stephan Seitz - 26.07.18, 11:10:
> On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:32:34 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> >Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
> >> I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite
> >> that text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its
> >> 75M.  I>
> >That text did not *directly* cause anything. It were still human
> >beings killing one another. The book is not responsible for
> >anything. Human beings are.
> 
> Sounds like the US weapon industry.

Could I welcome feeling attacked in person? Yes.

Could I let go feeling attacked in person? Yes.

A weapon is a tool made specifically for the purpose of harming or 
killing human beings (or at least their bodies). Most books are not. Yet 
even with weapons human beings are responsible. That does not make it 
any better to give weapons freely to anyone who would like to have one. 
There are areas where it makes sense to restrict what human beings can 
do by not providing them the tools that are necessary or make it at 
least much more easy to do it.

I do not endorse of the bible in its current canonical variants 
mainstream churches use. Neither I do endorse of weapons. Quite the 
contrary.

In any case my initial remark regarding the bible did not contribute to 
the discussion here, I think.

> >But they are equal. Which means are to be treated equally fair and
> >with respect. I do not see that with the weboob package being
> >included in Debian with binary names unchanged.
> 
> I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the
> package in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t interested in
> changing the names.

The point is that it currently is in Debian, binary names unchanged:

% rmadison weboob | grep unstable
weboob | 1.3-1 | unstable   | source, all

Of course it can be changed.

Thanks.
-- 
Martin

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Stephan Seitz]

On Do, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:32:34 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:

Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:

I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite that
text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its 75M.  I

That text did not *directly* cause anything. It were still human beings
killing one another. The book is not responsible for anything. Human
beings are.


Sounds like the US weapon industry.


But they are equal. Which means are to be treated equally fair and with
respect. I do not see that with the weboob package being included in
Debian with binary names unchanged.


I don’t understand the problem. No one forces anyone to keep the package 
in Debian. Upstream made clear it isn’t interested in changing the names.



How would a world free from power struggle between men and women look
like? (Or even free from power struggle between any of the expressions
of that one consciousness?)


Such a world will never exist because this struggle is part of the human 
being.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Stephan Seitz]

On Mi, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:25:11 +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:

Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?


Yes, I do. And I remember the problems with this renaming. And do you 
remember the reason? This was not a „I don’t like the name” case, it was 
a legal one. And I believe everyone is glad that we can use firefox and 
thunderbird again.


In other cases there were name clashes. And this could go to the TC.

Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Rens Houben]

In other news for Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 09:16:42AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland has 
been seen typing:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:46:29AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:
 
> > I honestly don't see any connection to religion here.
 
> It's a tenuous (and frankly ridiculous) attempt to demonize a position
> that Adam disagrees with.

It's a big invisible neon sign saying "Please ask me what I mean by
'this religion' so I have an excuse to post a lengthy, lovingly written
and passionately argued rant about Political Correctness, SJWs and how
liberals are the real nazis that will derail this thread so nothing
useful comes off it and the status quo will remain comfortably
preserved".

Let's not feed the troll.

> -- 
--
Rens.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 08:46:29AM +0100, Nikolaus Rath wrote:

On Jul 26 2018, Adam Borowski  wrote:

That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].


I honestly don't see any connection to religion here.


It's a tenuous (and frankly ridiculous) attempt to demonize a position
that Adam disagrees with.

--

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Sune Vuorela]

On 2018-07-26, Marc Dequènes  wrote:
> I also like the idea of a single binary with subcommands, would be 
> easier than remembering all the commands.
>
> But as I said unless upstream does agree on something, we're not going 
> to maintain an alternate version.

Would it be sufficient small maintenance and still acceptable for
everyone if we did

 - install the current binaries into /usr/lib/woob
 - create a /usr/bin/woob command with subcommands
 - create a mappings file /usr/lib/woob/mappings
 - create a tool to help find unmapped tools and update the mappings
   file

The woob command would then lookup the "original" name in the mappings
file and exec the correct one with remaining args.

This is probably fairly low maintenance once created, but it still has
the bad names on the file system, though hidden away out of path.

the user interface would then be 

| woob recipe 

/Sune

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Nikolaus Rath]

On Jul 26 2018, Adam Borowski  wrote:
>> Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
>> count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.
>
> That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].

I honestly don't see any connection to religion here. Even if we assume
that Christianity has a problem with sex (I believe this is what you
have in mind), this has no relevance to the fact that being objectified
does not create a welcoming environment for the affected people.


Best,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Adam Borowski - 26.07.18, 03:09:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:55:50AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we
> > > > consider to be of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility
> > > > with third parties (free software; our users' needs; creating a
> > > > developer community that is welcoming to all people, instead of
> > > > one that mirrors a wider culture which discriminates against
> > > > people based on their identity).
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> > > The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes
> > > participation by everyone,
> > 
> > No. The sentence goes on:
> > 
> > "We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact
> > constructively with our community".
> > 
> > Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
> > count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.
> 
> That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].
[… left out speculative case that in my opinion does not add to the 
discussion …]

"interact constructively with our community" is about human beings.

Human beings have values, thoughts, feelings. They are not objects, they 
are not things. They are commonly called subjects. But the names of the 
binaries in the weboob package for my sense seem to suggest that women 
would be things with boobs. A pretty good example for objectification if 
you ask me.

> What's wrong with looking at boobs?  The vast majority of humankind
> (by measuring genital blood flow when viewing such an image, the
> percentage of women is actually higher than that of men) enjoys that.
>  Many of them deny that, though, having been forced to believe in a
> "sin".

I think no one said that there is inherently anything wrong with that.

But it appears to be a common argument:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/You_hate_sex

> I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite that
> text having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its 75M.  I

That text did not *directly* cause anything. It were still human beings 
killing one another. The book is not responsible for anything. Human 
beings are.

So far I never read a text that magically caused me to do a certain 
thing without me having a chance to decide differently. If all the books 
here in my apartment would suddenly cause me to do all kind of things. 
Interesting idea, but so far this did not happen.

> [1]. And I insist on calling it a religion, as it has the hallmarks of
> one.

And judge it by that. Now what is your judgment? Is it a fact? If not, 
what is it then?

What is the common notion in our societies to mostly depict or describe 
mostly women as "sexual" while both men and women are sexual? That it is 
mostly unconscious does not make it any more factual.  Binary names in 
the weboob package are boob related, nothing about dicks for example. Is 
it a religion too? Hey, as a man, I am sexual too! (Of course in case 
you see all as expressions of one consciousness, being a man, being a 
woman is just identity, not the truth.)

I do not agree with the notion of men and women being the same which 
from what I see appears to be floating around in our modern societies, 
probably cause someone said it in the name of feminism. They are not.

But they are equal. Which means are to be treated equally fair and with 
respect. I do not see that with the weboob package being included in 
Debian with binary names unchanged.

I do not even agree with the word feminism. Nor with any other ism. I 
agree that from ism to religion is a short path way. I do not agree with 
everything that people said or did in the name of feminism or any other 
ism.

But I inherently agree with treating women as equal to men. Including 
weboob package unchanged in Debian is not treating them as equal to men.

How would a world free from power struggle between men and women look 
like? (Or even free from power struggle between any of the expressions 
of that one consciousness?)

Thanks.
-- 
Martin

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ole Streicher]

Adam Borowski  writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:25:11PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
>> Marc Haber  writes:
>> > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
>> > core principles?
>> 
>> Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
>> of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
>> 
>> Possible renames is already built in our interpretation of DFSG §3,
>> that we allow renaming when original names are forbidden by license).
>
> Package names exist in Debian only.  Every distribution has its own
> namespace, and relations matter only within that distribution.
>
> On the other hand, executable names do matter for compatibility with
> scripts.  Especially for a CLI tool like weboob.

That is not just about package names -- even the programs were called
like that (with the original names linked to it, however). When I
started Icedove, the program title (and everything else) still showed
the Debian name. This is also "end user compatibility".

I don't see why renaming would break our core principles. When it comes
to "Our priorities are our users [...]", we have to weight between
offending users and staying compatible, so the outcome is depending on
the weight for each topic (and any well-founded solution would not break
this principle).

Cheers

Ole

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Adam Borowski - 25.07.18, 21:56:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:05:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by
> > > our
> > > core principles?
> > 
> > It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we
> > consider to be of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with
> > third parties (free software; our users' needs; creating a
> > developer community that is welcoming to all people, instead of one
> > that mirrors a wider culture which discriminates against people
> > based on their identity).
> 
> If you put technical needs below religious ones (and this particular
> religion is especially vile), something is really wrong.  Debian is
> supposed to be inclusive for all users.  Working software is much
> more important than hurt feelings -- especially if you care about
> feelings of only a single group.

How would Debian be inclusive for all users and developers in case it 
includes software which discriminates "only a single group"?

I think this is not "only" about hurting feelings.

-- 
Martin

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[duck]

Quack,

On 2018-07-25 22:35, Jonathan Dowland wrote:


I think it would be worthwhile to file a BTS bug so it can be easily
tracked which versions of the package we distribute still carry this
bug, so I will do that.


Agreed, we should ensure all fixes are in all versions and I'd be glad 
to have some help.


Upstream agreed to fix the referenced problem without discussing, which 
is encouraging.
So we should check the messages further and report them to have them 
fixed if any other insult slipped through.



I think the next best step for this particular suggestion would be for
me to take it upstream, and, assuming it meets with some kind of
positive response, I would also be happy to work towards implementing
it. So I will raise this in upstream's Gitlab.


You're welcome to try convincing them. They were clear they did not want 
to rename but maybe they could agree on having a variant of the binaries 
along with the original ones.
I also like the idea of a single binary with subcommands, would be 
easier than remembering all the commands.


But as I said unless upstream does agree on something, we're not going 
to maintain an alternate version.


\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Adam Borowski]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 12:55:50AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to 
> > > be
> > > of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
> > > software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is 
> > > welcoming
> > > to all people, instead of one that mirrors a wider culture which
> > > discriminates against people based on their identity).
> [..] 
> > The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes participation by
> > everyone, 
> 
> No. The sentence goes on:
> 
> "We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact
> constructively with our community".
> 
> Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
> count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.

That "objectification" is an invention of your particular religion[1].  If
another package insults a totem law that declares all twins need to be
killed at birth, would we remove calligra-gemini as it dares to include a
reference to those in its name?

Here we have an useful piece of software.  Its authors believe that its
somewhat puerile but harmless name serves well as a detector of those who
are "offended first, think later".  You're proposing to exclude them.

What's wrong with looking at boobs?  The vast majority of humankind (by
measuring genital blood flow when viewing such an image, the percentage of
women is actually higher than that of men) enjoys that.  Many of them deny
that, though, having been forced to believe in a "sin".

I for one don't protest inclusion of the Bible in Debian, despite that text
having been the cause of 100M deaths, nor Quran with its 75M.  I wouldn't
protest even the Communist Manifesto or Mein Kampf (stats hotly contested,
but no doubt of the former being #1 and the latter #4).

In comparison, the concept of boobs has a _positive_ effect.  It does less
harm than the concept of kittens, and no one but bird lovers protest those.

So no, that _you_ want to not use a certain content doesn't mean anyone else
should be denied that right.  You want to make Debian less inclusive,
poorer.  Removing a perfectly working piece of software without a technical
reason is certainly not "interacting constructively".


Meow.

[1]. And I insist on calling it a religion, as it has the hallmarks of one.
-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[gregor herrmann]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 21:56:10 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
> > of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
> > software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming
> > to all people, instead of one that mirrors a wider culture which
> > discriminates against people based on their identity).
[..] 
> The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes participation by
> everyone, 

No. The sentence goes on:

"We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact
constructively with our community".

Promoting objectification of half of the world's population doesn't
count as constructive social interaction in my understanding.


Cheers,
gregor

-- 
 .''`.  https://info.comodo.priv.at -- Debian Developer https://www.debian.org
 : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D  85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06
 `. `'  Member VIBE!AT & SPI Inc. -- Supporter Free Software Foundation Europe
   `-   


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:25:11PM +0200, Ole Streicher wrote:
> Marc Haber  writes:
> > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
> > core principles?
> 
> Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
> of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?
> 
> Possible renames is already built in our interpretation of DFSG §3,
> that we allow renaming when original names are forbidden by license).

Package names exist in Debian only.  Every distribution has its own
namespace, and relations matter only within that distribution.

On the other hand, executable names do matter for compatibility with
scripts.  Especially for a CLI tool like weboob.


Meow!
-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ole Streicher]

Marc Haber  writes:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:40:25 -0700, Steve Langasek 
> wrote:
>>On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
>>> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
>>> consent.
>>
>>Your "should not" does not follow from any of Debian's core principles
>>(DFSG, Debian Social Contract, Diversity Statement).
>
> Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
> core principles?

Obviously we renamed packages (which made us incompatible with the rest
of the world) already if needed. Rememver iceweasel or icedove?

Possible renames is already built in our interpretation of DFSG §3,
that we allow renaming when original names are forbidden by license).

So: compatibility is not an absolute core principle.

Best regards

Ole

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:53PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:05:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
> > core principles?
> 
> It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
> of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
> software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming
> to all people, instead of one that mirrors a wider culture which
> discriminates against people based on their identity).

If you put technical needs below religious ones (and this particular
religion is especially vile), something is really wrong.  Debian is supposed
to be inclusive for all users.  Working software is much more important than
hurt feelings -- especially if you care about feelings of only a single
group.

The diversity statement we approved explicitely welcomes participation by
everyone, and (by my reading) implicitly bans censorship.  You're trying to
promote censorship, and that I protest against.


Meow!
-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 07:05:33PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:40:25 -0700, Steve Langasek 
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> >> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> >> > accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
> >> > rename the offensive parts of this package.

> >> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
> >> consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are 
> >> part
> >> of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing to
> >> package or keeping it as it is.

> >Your "should not" does not follow from any of Debian's core principles
> >(DFSG, Debian Social Contract, Diversity Statement).

> Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
> core principles?

It is covered.  We explicitly list a number of things that we consider to be
of higher priority than arbitrary compatibility with third parties (free
software; our users' needs; creating a developer community that is welcoming
to all people, instead of one that mirrors a wider culture which
discriminates against people based on their identity).

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Marc Haber]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 09:40:25 -0700, Steve Langasek 
wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
>> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>> > accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
>> > rename the offensive parts of this package.
>
>> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
>> consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are part
>> of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing to
>> package or keeping it as it is.
>
>Your "should not" does not follow from any of Debian's core principles
>(DFSG, Debian Social Contract, Diversity Statement).

Staying compatible with the rest of the world is not covered by our
core principles?

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:15:12PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:

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]


I think it would be worthwhile to file a BTS bug so it can be easily
tracked which versions of the package we distribute still carry this
bug, so I will do that.


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.


I had a further thought about the names. Asides from the issue at hand,
there is no consistency between the command names. Some are prefixed
"boo", some are suffixed "oob", neither of which is particularly great
at identifying the parent project, and many are neither.

So a completely orthogonal rationale for renaming the tools would be to
unify them under a common, identifying prefix or suffix, or some other
common pattern. This would also permit the future development of a
subcommand pattern like git uses, "woob weather", "woob parcel", etc.,
should that be desireable.

I think the next best step for this particular suggestion would be for
me to take it upstream, and, assuming it meets with some kind of
positive response, I would also be happy to work towards implementing
it. So I will raise this in upstream's Gitlab.


--

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:15:52PM +0200, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
> > rename the offensive parts of this package.

> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
> consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are part
> of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing to
> package or keeping it as it is.

Your "should not" does not follow from any of Debian's core principles
(DFSG, Debian Social Contract, Diversity Statement).

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer   https://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Marvin Renich]

* Stephan Seitz  [180724 09:49]:
> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
> > Stephan Seitz  writes:
> > > He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
> > > upstream consent.
> > Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
> > transitional packages / a weboob-offensive could be made for the old
> > names / etc), but I don't think that's where you're going here.
> 
> Well, upstream has chosen these names. Besides from the fact that the
> project and its applications are known by these names (how would you tag the
> package, so that someone who knows the project would find the right package
> with apt or apt-file?) it has something to do with politeness (in my
> opinion). If you wish to package the work of others you should use the right
> names (we don’t have any name clash).

While I agree that renaming the files in an arbitrary Debian package
should not be done without good reason, I do not agree that it should
not be done.  I believe the names in this package provide more than
sufficient justification to carry a local Debian fork (as was done for
Firefox/Iceweasel for many years for a different reason).

However, the maintainer of weboob has clearly expressed that he is not
willing and/or does not have the resources to maintain a local Debian
fork, so I did not suggest this.

...Marvin

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Stephan Seitz]

On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 01:19:35 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:

Stephan Seitz  writes:

He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
upstream consent.

Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
transitional packages / a weboob-offensive could be made for the old
names / etc), but I don't think that's where you're going here.


Well, upstream has chosen these names. Besides from the fact that the 
project and its applications are known by these names (how would you tag 
the package, so that someone who knows the project would find the right 
package with apt or apt-file?) it has something to do with politeness (in 
my opinion). If you wish to package the work of others you should use the 
right names (we don’t have any name clash).


If you have a problem with the names but upstream doesn’t (it seems to be 
a Frensh project, even with female developpers), you’re free to drop the 
package. Or, as Marvin Renich noted, you can fork the project. Then you 
can do as you please as long as you do the work. Then time will tell if 
you win the users of the old project.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Marvin Renich]

* Stephan Seitz  [180724 07:25]:
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream
> consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are part
> of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing to
> package or keeping it as it is.

Or, if the software is useful enough (and there have been several
mentions on this thread that it is useful), fork the project and rename
everything in the fork.  This is, after all, open source, and this is an
excellent example of a reason to avail ourselves of the privileges
afforded by open source software.  Maybe enough people will appreciate
the de-objectification of the fork that the original project will simply
fade into obscurity.

In the open source community, we rightfully have a healthy respect for
the original author's wishes and an aversion to forking a project to
wrest control from the author, but it is, on rare occasions, warranted,
and by giving the software an open source license, the author has
granted permission to do so.

Of course, this requires someone who cares enough about the software and
who disagrees enough with the current names used to be willing to spend
the time and effort to fork it.  I don't use the software, so I have no
desire to create such a fork myself.  I do believe that renaming the
current package to include -offensive is clearly warranted.

...Marvin

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Matthew Vernon]

Stephan Seitz  writes:

> On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:
>>accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
>>rename the offensive parts of this package.
>
> He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without
> upstream consent.

Why not? I can see an argument about not confusing users (though
transitional packages / a weboob-offensive could be made for the old
names / etc), but I don't think that's where you're going here.

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Stephan Seitz]

On Di, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:49:55 +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:

accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
rename the offensive parts of this package.


He certainly should NOT rename any parts of the package without upstream 
consent. If upstream doesn’t approve (and it seems that these names are 
part of upstream’s working culture), then the other choices are removing 
to package or keeping it as it is.


Shade and sweet water!

Stephan

--
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Matthew Vernon]

Hi,

"Marc Dequènes (duck)"  writes:

[snip]

> So apart from objectification of women, but without
> instrumentalization or degrading message, I was not able to find
> serious consequences. As much as I would prefer things to be different
> (I already told upstream in the past) I don't feel I have any right or
> special wisdom allowing me to dictate people to act and think
> differently. Banning content because it displease me and make people
> uncomfortable while no direct harm has been found is unlikely to have
> a positive effect. Consequently unless harmful content I'm not aware
> of is discovered in this package I am not going to remove it from the
> archive. I would consider adding a neutral warning message in the
> package description though, so people can individually decide for
> themselves if this is acceptable from their own point of view.

With respect, I think your analysis is seriously flawed. As has been
pointed out in this thread (by Miriam, for instance[0]), there is harm from
the sexualised atmosphere that weboob contributes to[1]. That you, as a
man, don't perceive that harm is, I'm afraid, part of the problem. You
should listen to women's experiences (and the harm they experience), and
accept that they are authoritative in this regard. Therefore, you should
rename the offensive parts of this package.

There is a general point here, that people in the majority often fail to
appreciate the harm done to minorities, but I don't think now is the
place to belabour it.

> I'll be coming at DebConf this year. Feel free to come and discuss it
> with me.

I'm afraid I won't be at DebConf, so email will have to do :)

Regards,

Matthew

[0] As she points out, women shouldn't have to weigh in on every thread
of this sort.
[1] For more on this, see
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment which I think
has already been mentioned in this thread
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Martin Steigerwald]

No need to cc me. I am subscribed to the list.

I proofread this message several times as it is important to me to make 
it clear as best I can. It may still have typos or syntax mistakes.

Ian Jackson - 23.07.18, 20:43:
> Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in
> Debian?"):
> > It would be good if women involved in the Debian project would speak
> > up here.
> 
> Many people have already explained why this is difficult.

I admit I did not read the full thread.
 
> But it is not necessary to have personal testimony for each question
> of this kind.  The kind of problem the web-oob package has is, sadly,

I agree with that.

> So we can read what women (and their allies) have written on this.  A
> good place to start is often the Geek Feminism Wiki.  I looked there
> and found this:
>   http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment

Thanks for pointing me to this resource. I think I have read in it 
before. I read the page you have mentioned and some others.

Appreciating the beauty of women, and men! and any human being 
regardless of gender identity, or even a flower or animal is one thing. 
I have no issue with that.

What women wrote on the page you mentioned is something else. And what 
from what I read here upstream developers do with the weboob project is 
also something else. I see no appreciation for the beauty of women in 
the way how weboob developers name the binaries.

> >  Of course I understand any hesitance to do so. I felt hesitance
> > myself often enough, even as what is usually called male.
> 
> I am reliably informed that things are *much* worse if your online
> presence looks female.  I haven't tried the experiment.

I did and still do it. For privacy reasons I omit details here.

> > What would be required to help women to feel more comfortable to
> > post
> > their opinion on this mailing list?
> 
> If we would send police to arrest the people who send "women with
> opinions" death and rape threats, or doxx them, etc. ?  This is not
> within Debian's gift.  But, we can stop making the problem worse by
> perpetuating cultural practices which devalue women.

So this is more about reactions from people who read this mailing list 
or may be pointed to this thread, but are not necessarily members of or 
contributors to the Debian project?

My question was more aimed what members of or contributors to the Debian 
project can do to improve the current situation, cause as you say Debian 
that means the people behind it cannot control what is happening outside 
of it.

Of course this does not make those threats any better or any less 
harmful. But to improve the current situation within the project, in 
case it needs improvement, which I bet it still does, may help to 
provide at least some sense of safety and security for women.
 
> >  So what concrete steps would help to start shifting that in the
> > direction of more respect between the different genders?
> 
> I don't agree with this "bothsidesism".  The problem here is the
> oppression of women, by, mostly, men.  There is not any significant
> amount of oppression of men by women.

From my own experience I do not agree with that. Oppression of men by 
women may not be that visible, may be more subtle and (probably by far) 
not that wide-spread, but I have experienced it personally. For reasons 
to protect my own privacy and safety I do not share the details of that 
experience here on this list.

Also I recently just read an article from a woman about dating men and 
had the impression that there was a lot of hatred and objectification 
towards men in it. I understood where it came from as I read from past 
experiences of that woman with dating, but still, I did not feel 
respected as one most would call a man, after reading that article.

So from my experience it is not as simple as black and white. Also not 
from what I heard or read, even from women.

But it does not matter any way. Whatever anyone else does cannot justify 
or make appropriate or not appropriate what I do. So whether women 
oppress men or not cannot make what weboob upstream developers do any 
more appropriate or not appropriate.

It even does not matter who started the violence or who did more or who 
did less. What matters is to end it. Step by step.

> What concrete steps, you ask ?  Well, we could start by removing
> gratuitous sexual references from software which has nothing to do
> with sex.[1]

I fully agree with that.

> We could also stop producing absurd (and readily and frequently
> debunked) counterarguments to explain why this isn't a problem, or why
> doing anything about it would lead inevitably to awful censorship,
> etc.  (FAOD I'm not really referring to your messages here, but there
> have been some truly silly examples in this thread.)

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Miriam Ruiz - 23.07.18, 12:10:
> 2018-07-23 8:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Steigerwald :
> > Ben Hutchings - 23.07.18, 02:34:
> >> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> >> > On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> >> > > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread
> >> > > (myself
> >> > > included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly
> >> > > careful
> >> > > with "it doesn't bother me."
> >> > 
> >> > You're right, that's strange that all this men want to tell what
> >> > is
> >> > accepted or not by women. I find it infantilizing for them.
> >> 
> >> Sadly, the Debian community is still almost entirely male.  Those
> >> women that are here may be afraid to speak up, because they see
> >> what
> >> happens to women with opinions on the Internet.
> > 
> > It would be good if women involved in the Debian project would speak
> > up here. Of course I understand any hesitance to do so. I felt
> > hesitance myself often enough, even as what is usually called male.
> 
> I won't speak for anyone else than me, so I won't claim to know why
> others haven't stepped in into this discussion.

Thank you very much, Miriam, for your *courage* to speak out your truth.

> We have been through similar situations many times, so we kind of know
> what to expect from them, particularly when upstream is apparently
> trolling on purpose to see how far they can go until someone
> complains. Stepping up and publicly complaining about these
> situations generally leads to some kind of harassment and the usual
> accusations of oversentitiveness, not being able to develop a thick
> skin, restricting freedom of speech in such a way that one might
> think that fixing the issue would immediately lead to a tyrannical
> totalitarian dystopia, etc. I am not keen on enduring all that
> usually comes to us when talking out loud in these situations that,
> honestly, I think are intentionally crafted to burn us out until we
> eventually stop complaining out of tiredness.

I understand. You and your friends have gone through similar situations 
many times.

I am sorry that this happened to you.

I won´t defend the men who you experienced these situations with. They 
were certainly not acting in my name. I have been accused of being 
overly sensitive myself, many times. I know how that feels. And I am 
happy that meanwhile I found a way to let it go.

> In my opinion, the messages should be clean up so that they are not
> intentionally aggressive against any social group, and the binaries
> should be renamed to more useful and less provocative names. The
> reasons have been perfectly explained in previous emails, so I won't
> repeat them. And, be aware that, if the messages and binary names stay
> as they are, they will probably be a reference to support the
> argument of us not being too welcoming, so we might as well have an
> argumentative ready to explain it when confronted about it. But I'm
> not gonna start a fight out of this, because I know what is coming,
> and I also feel that it is what upstream wants in the same place.

I accept your point of view.

I welcome you to the Debian project.

I know I can only speak for myself, and I know that my acceptance may 
not necessarily help you to feel safer.

I agree with you about changing the messages and changing the binary 
names in the way you wrote. I am also okay with seeing the package be 
removed from the archive, in case the former would be too much work for 
the maintainer to maintain.

> I have the feeling that none of us really wants to be the target of
> the retaliations. At least not me, sorry.

I accept that. I won´t urge you to write anything more in this thread.

I will continue my letting go journey to contribute my part to healing 
what is wounded between men and women, to contribute my part to end the 
violence between the genders.

Thank you for your openness. I felt like offering you a virtual hug. 
However I am unsure whether you´d like to accept one from me, from 
someone you likely do not know although you might have seen me at 
DebConf15 in Heidelberg. So I let that go as well. As well as any 
wanting of approval from you for what I wrote here, or any wanting of 
controlling your experience, any wanting to make you feel better and 
more welcome than how you feel.

Ciao.
-- 
Martin

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ian Jackson]

Martin Steigerwald writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> It would be good if women involved in the Debian project would speak up 
> here.

Many people have already explained why this is difficult.

But it is not necessary to have personal testimony for each question
of this kind.  The kind of problem the web-oob package has is, sadly,
not that unusual in geekdom, or the world in general - although this
seems to be quite a bad case.  Normally it's in conference or
marketing materials, and not so embedded in the software as well.

So we can read what women (and their allies) have written on this.  A
good place to start is often the Geek Feminism Wiki.  I looked there
and found this:
  http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment

>  Of course I understand any hesitance to do so. I felt hesitance 
> myself often enough, even as what is usually called male.

I am reliably informed that things are *much* worse if your online
presence looks female.  I haven't tried the experiment.

> What would be required to help women to feel more comfortable to post 
> their opinion on this mailing list?

If we would send police to arrest the people who send "women with
opinions" death and rape threats, or doxx them, etc. ?  This is not
within Debian's gift.  But, we can stop making the problem worse by
perpetuating cultural practices which devalue women.

>  So what concrete steps would help to start shifting that in the
> direction of more respect between the different genders?

I don't agree with this "bothsidesism".  The problem here is the
oppression of women, by, mostly, men.  There is not any significant
amount of oppression of men by women.

What concrete steps, you ask ?  Well, we could start by removing
gratuitous sexual references from software which has nothing to do
with sex.[1]

We could also stop producing absurd (and readily and frequently
debunked) counterarguments to explain why this isn't a problem, or why
doing anything about it would lead inevitably to awful censorship,
etc.  (FAOD I'm not really referring to your messages here, but there
have been some truly silly examples in this thread.)

Thanks for your attention.

Ian.


[1]

[content warning: sexual references]

The point "nothing to do with sex" is very important.  I would love
for there to be software in Debian for driving sex toys, for example.
Most existing systems are quite proprietary and often creepy and full
of security holes.  This is a very real software freedom problem
affecting a very intimate area of people's lives.  Free sex toy
software would naturally talk about cocks and boobs and things - but
it would mean your actual or simulated cock or whatever.  I also have
no problems with the purity tests, or fortunes-off (although the
latter ought to have its name changed to -offensive as per policy).

-- 
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: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Miriam Ruiz]

2018-07-23 8:23 GMT+02:00 Martin Steigerwald :
> Ben Hutchings - 23.07.18, 02:34:
>> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
>> > On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
>> > > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread
>> > > (myself
>> > > included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly careful
>> > > with "it doesn't bother me."
>> >
>> > You're right, that's strange that all this men want to tell what is
>> > accepted or not by women. I find it infantilizing for them.
>>
>> Sadly, the Debian community is still almost entirely male.  Those
>> women that are here may be afraid to speak up, because they see what
>> happens to women with opinions on the Internet.
>
> It would be good if women involved in the Debian project would speak up
> here. Of course I understand any hesitance to do so. I felt hesitance
> myself often enough, even as what is usually called male.

I won't speak for anyone else than me, so I won't claim to know why
others haven't stepped in into this discussion.

We have been through similar situations many times, so we kind of know
what to expect from them, particularly when upstream is apparently
trolling on purpose to see how far they can go until someone
complains. Stepping up and publicly complaining about these situations
generally leads to some kind of harassment and the usual accusations
of oversentitiveness, not being able to develop a thick skin,
restricting freedom of speech in such a way that one might think that
fixing the issue would immediately lead to a tyrannical totalitarian
dystopia, etc. I am not keen on enduring all that usually comes to us
when talking out loud in these situations that, honestly, I think are
intentionally crafted to burn us out until we eventually stop
complaining out of tiredness.

In my opinion, the messages should be clean up so that they are not
intentionally aggressive against any social group, and the binaries
should be renamed to more useful and less provocative names. The
reasons have been perfectly explained in previous emails, so I won't
repeat them. And, be aware that, if the messages and binary names stay
as they are, they will probably be a reference to support the argument
of us not being too welcoming, so we might as well have an
argumentative ready to explain it when confronted about it. But I'm
not gonna start a fight out of this, because I know what is coming,
and I also feel that it is what upstream wants in the same place.

I have the feeling that none of us really wants to be the target of
the retaliations. At least not me, sorry.

Greetings,
Miry

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jerome Flesch]

19 juillet 2018 17:15 "Jonathan Dowland"  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 

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Martin Steigerwald]

Ben Hutchings - 23.07.18, 02:34:
> On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> > On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> > > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread
> > > (myself
> > > included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly careful
> > > with "it doesn't bother me."
> > 
> > You're right, that's strange that all this men want to tell what is
> > accepted or not by women. I find it infantilizing for them.
> 
> Sadly, the Debian community is still almost entirely male.  Those
> women that are here may be afraid to speak up, because they see what
> happens to women with opinions on the Internet.

It would be good if women involved in the Debian project would speak up 
here. Of course I understand any hesitance to do so. I felt hesitance 
myself often enough, even as what is usually called male.

What would be required to help women to feel more comfortable to post 
their opinion on this mailing list? I think it would be beneficial for 
the project to improve the current situation, to make clear that women 
are welcome. I see the project as the people in the project… everyone 
can contribute.

I bet most of the hesitance is due to bad experiences of women in the 
past. I do not recall any situation on this list, but I only read a very 
small part of it. So there may be some I either do not remember or did 
not read. Past experiences do not need to determine the present moment. 
There are in the past already.

It is in collective consciousness of our so called civilized western 
societies (and likely many other societies as well). So what concrete 
steps would help to start shifting that in the direction of more respect 
between the different genders?

In the end we are all human beings or expressions of the same one 
consciousness in different soul-mind-bodies.

Ciao.
-- 
Martin

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wookey]

On 2018-07-22 13:14 -0400, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2018, Wookey wrote:
> 
> > I think they're funny, which I think is what was intended by
> > upstream. I enjoy a gratuitous boob-or-handjob mention as much as the
> > next 14 year old.
> 
> As much as the next 14-year-old _boy_.

Good point. I should have made that clear.

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ben Hutchings]

On Sun, 2018-07-22 at 23:34 +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> On 22/Jul - 13:14, Geoffrey Thomas wrote:
> > And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread (myself
> > included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly careful with "it
> > doesn't bother me."
> 
> You're right, that's strange that all this men want to tell what is accepted 
> or
> not by women. I find it infantilizing for them.

Sadly, the Debian community is still almost entirely male.  Those women
that are here may be afraid to speak up, because they see what happens
to women with opinions on the Internet.

> Perhaps these men are the real sexists, not the weboob contributors.

And perhaps all the "boob"s and "fag"s reflect your sincere respect for
women and LGBT people?  Don't insult our intelligence.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Anthony's Law of Force: Don't force it, get a larger hammer.


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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 11:28:32PM +0200, Romain Bignon wrote:
> On 22/Jul - 10:15, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> > > but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232
> > 
> > Thanks for pointing this out. It's not in yet and I've just asked upstream
> > to clean this mess.
> 
> This is a merge request, not accepted.

It's also still open, and its author is ranked 3rd in the number of
commits to the repository.

> In the meantime, a commit has been merged weeks ago to remove some 
> inappropriate
> comments in the code.

This merge request was opened 12 hours before the one you mention was
merged, but 9 hours after the mentioned contributor commented there.
IOW, the direct reaction to a MR to remove insults was another MR to
use different insults, by one of the most prominent contributors to the
project. From a third party, that doesn't put great light on the
project.

Mike

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Romain Bignon]

On 22/Jul - 10:15, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> > but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out. It's not in yet and I've just asked upstream
> to clean this mess.

This is a merge request, not accepted.

In the meantime, a commit has been merged weeks ago to remove some inappropriate
comments in the code.

Romain

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Steffen Möller]

On 7/22/18 2:50 AM, Wookey wrote:
> On 2018-07-21 12:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
>>> I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings.
>> Rationality has a place, but so do feelings.
>>
>> The names in this package are offensive, plain and simple. 
> _To_some_people_. 
>
> I think they're funny, which I think is what was intended by
> upstream. I enjoy a gratuitous boob-or-handjob mention as much as the
> next 14 year old. On the other hand I don't think the homophobic
> user-abuse is funny, but the authors probably do/did (apparently still do
> given the change from 'fag' to 'soyboy').
>
> Yes, it's pretty-much the definition of puerile humour. No it's not
> inclusive or welcoming. But on balance I think we should err on the
> side of live and let live, because this is a very diverse place, we
> don't agree on much beyond the benefits of free software, and
> providing useful software in Debian is a good thing for all our
> downstreams to choose from.
>
> So yes, I'd leave it in, whilst encouraging upstream to reduce the
> laddishness, because that is offputting for quite a lot of people, and
> is just no longer cool amongst adults. (if it ever was).

I think we are mixing two discussions here. One is, if the humor shown
is offensive for Debian to redistribute it. The other is, if the package
treats fellow-humans that have boobs (females, older males, others)
particularly badly.

>From what I observed in this thread, few consider the package to be
unbearingly offensive in its own right. This is in particular so since
the names of binaries are only seen after the installation. "weboob" is
a "web"-tool and shall be read as "web-oobs" by the unprimed reader.

This leaves it to the concern focusing with the naming on a body feature
that is mostly associated with females. I hence suggest to add
semantically mostly equivalent names that refer to features mostly
associated with males. Here some suggestions for the ones considered
most disturbing:

wetboobs -> dripdick
handjoob -> handjob
boobtracker -> dicktracker
flatboob -> accomodick
boobooks -> readick
boobcoming -> dickoming


This way, basically short of a dh_links instruction, we would maintain
our gender balance and don't start censoring what typically ends with
puberty, anyway.

Cheers,

Steffen

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Geoffrey Thomas]

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018, Wookey wrote:


I think they're funny, which I think is what was intended by
upstream. I enjoy a gratuitous boob-or-handjob mention as much as the
next 14 year old.


As much as the next 14-year-old _boy_.

Even if Debian takes the position that the package name (and executable 
names, personality, etc.) are acceptable, there's no corresponding way to 
name a package that is similarly objectifying towards men. Our language 
has a wealth of terms for women that convey "Whatever you do with your 
mind, I will always see you for your body as a tool of my pleasure," but 
no corresponding ones for men.


(You can say that this is is a fault of the English language or of 
anglophone cultures, sure, but Debian operates primarily in the English 
language, so even if there were some such term in another culture, it 
would not be equivalent in impact.)


The closest is the homophobia - which only insults a subset of men, and 
often insults them by insinuating they're women (implying they should be 
subject to the usual disregard for women). "Soyboy" specifically refers to 
a right-wing urban legend that soy contains an estrogen analogue that 
cause men who consume too much soy to start turning into women. (I'd call 
it transphobic, too.)


If there were a package in Debian that crudely objectified men, tying into 
a cultural history of objectification of men as wide as this one ties into 
a cultural history of objectification of women, and with an upstream whose 
personality involved the female equivalent of "laddishness" - I think this 
would be a rather different discussion. And at that point the rebuttals 
of "Are we offended by words? Where will it end??" would make more sense, 
but it seems to me the current question isn't actually about just words.


And, as far as I know, everyone who's replied on this thread (myself 
included) is a man - so I think we should be particularly careful with "it 
doesn't bother me."


--
Geoffrey Thomas
https://ldpreload.com
geo...@ldpreload.com

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi Marc,

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> - is it degrading?
>   « These are acts that, even if done by consent, convey a message that
> diminishes the importance or value of all human beings. »
>   This does no apply here as there is no depiction of act or even any
> message.

I think that is a misinterpretation -- naming something is an act too,
which may "convey a message".

(I don't think this is critical though)

> - is it dehumanizing?
>   « These are acts that strip a person or a group of their human
> characteristics. It may involve describing or treating them as animals or as
> a lower type of human beings. »
>   Apart from objectification already discussed, there is no implication that
> woman are only good for sex or any such message.
>   Maybe some of the Weboob authors do not think highly of woman but we're
> discussing the package content and not judging people's thoughts (which we
> cannot be sure to know anyway).

Same here.

> So apart from objectification of women, but without instrumentalization or
> degrading message, I was not able to find serious consequences. As much as I
> would prefer things to be different (I already told upstream in the past) I
> don't feel I have any right or special wisdom allowing me to dictate people
> to act and think differently. Banning content because it displease me and
> make people uncomfortable while no direct harm has been found is unlikely to
> have a positive effect. Consequently unless harmful content I'm not aware of
> is discovered in this package I am not going to remove it from the archive.
> I would consider adding a neutral warning message in the package description
> though, so people can individually decide for themselves if this is
> acceptable from their own point of view.

I think this is an acceptable compromise if upstream is unwilling to
rename things.

> I'll be coming at DebConf this year. Feel free to come and discuss it with
> me.
> \_o<

I won't be, but I'm sure there will be some discussion ;-)

-- 
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

  -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
 Hacklab

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[duck]

Quack,

On 2018-07-22 19:16, Rens Houben wrote:

In other news for Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes



{ A whole lot of refuge in technicalities snipped }


There was no "technicalities". I decided to explain my decision and not 
base it on vague feelings or emotional outburst but on this:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory


No one in this entire thread was asking that this software be removed.


As explained earlier this thread starts in debian-private and I can 
assure you this was raised.



Instead, all along the suggestion has been "Rename some of the programs
because Debian is not run by a bunch of puerile twelve-year-olds who 
get

their sense of humor from Beavis and Butthead"


For some it was an acceptable stopgap, for others a temporary solution, 
but as upstream is unwilling to rename this would mean an endless and 
painful chore. Also when do you stop renaming? Would having all 
binaries, package names and descriptions, manpages, --help, and so on, 
so quite a lot of horrible work to maintain over time…. enough? I'm 
pretty sure there would be some to object having Python code with 
readable puerile things in it.


So that's true I did not explain this: I'm already struggling to have 
enough "spoons" to do useful things in Debian and other projects, so I'm 
not going to consider this non-solution.


I've drawn the line and if the software happens to go beyond it and 
upstream refuses to fix in a timely manner I will myself remove it from 
the archive. I may also refine my criteria and reevaluate later.


\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 12:16:22PM +0200, Rens Houben wrote:
> No one in this entire thread was asking that this software be removed.
> 
> Instead, all along the suggestion has been "Rename some of the programs
> because Debian is not run by a bunch of puerile twelve-year-olds who get
> their sense of humor from Beavis and Butthead"
Actually it was "rename, if that cannot be done, remove".

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Rens Houben]

In other news for Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) 
has been seen typing:
> Quack,
 
> It seems the project is leaving the decision about Weboob onto me, so I'll
> try to address it.


{ A whole lot of refuge in technicalities snipped }  
 
> So apart from objectification of women, but without instrumentalization or
> degrading message, I was not able to find serious consequences. As much as I
> would prefer things to be different (I already told upstream in the past) I
> don't feel I have any right or special wisdom allowing me to dictate people
> to act and think differently. Banning content because it displease me and
> make people uncomfortable while no direct harm has been found is unlikely to
> have a positive effect. Consequently unless harmful content I'm not aware of
> is discovered in this package I am not going to remove it from the archive.
> I would consider adding a neutral warning message in the package description
> though, so people can individually decide for themselves if this is
> acceptable from their own point of view.

No one in this entire thread was asking that this software be removed.

Instead, all along the suggestion has been "Rename some of the programs
because Debian is not run by a bunch of puerile twelve-year-olds who get
their sense of humor from Beavis and Butthead"

> I'll be coming at DebConf this year. Feel free to come and discuss it with
> me.
> \_o<
> 
> -- 
> Marc Dequènes
> 

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Russ Allbery]

Dmitry Smirnov  writes:

> With all due respect, you did not research the matter enough and neither
> am I... Just as I was checking online dictionaries to see if I've missed
> something as terrible as you say, I've found that "boob" is a reference
> to "embarrassing mistake" or "foolish or stupid person".  Evidence
> suggests that "weboob" may be semantically interpreted as word play
> around something entirely non sexual.

>   https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/boob
>   https://www.thefreedictionary.com/boob
>   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boobs
>   https://www.google.com/search?hl=en=dictionary%3A%20boobs

This attempt to manufacture excuses for upstream is absurd.

There is a ton of context here, both from the imagery on the upstream web
site and the other program names in the package.  It's completely obvious
that the word "boob" is referring to female anatomy, and the rest of the
package is an extended riff on that joke.

You can certainly disagree about how important that is or what impact it
might have, but let's at least be honest about the obvious intent.  Not
the slightest hint of mind reading is required.

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Jul 22, 2018 at 09:39:51AM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> Quack,
> 
> It seems the project is leaving the decision about Weboob onto me, so I'll
> try to address it.
> 
> The diversity statement tells me we should welcome others even if they are
> very different and with conflicting opinions but nothing beyond that. There
> is no policy part that I found helpful.
> I discarded heated reaction from the thread of discussion to isolate the
> most constructive remarks.
> 
> We've been able to draft guidelines about what we consider not acceptable at
> events and called this "code of conduct". This does not need to be universal
> but in our community we were able to agree on some criteria and I think this
> is making our world better. I don't think we should write an infinite list
> of rules but guidelines based on non-emotional objective points to consider.
> 
> There was part of the discussion about the intent of these upstream authors,
> but we're not mind reader and in the end the impact on people, and solving
> this if we can, is more important than judging people.
> 
> I've also excluded any consideration about the usefulness of this software.
> As long as one single DD is willing to maintain a software it is fine being
> in according to the policy. Also being very useful does not grant any
> special allowance to be nasty.
> 
> So I've considered these criteria:
> 
> 1) is it insulting?
> There was an insult targeting homosexuals, but a contributor proposed a fix
> and upstream accepted it without discussion.

but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232

Mike

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[duck]

Quack,

On 2018-07-22 09:52, Mike Hommey wrote:


but... https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/232


Thanks for pointing this out. It's not in yet and I've just asked 
upstream to clean this mess.


\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wookey]

On 2018-07-21 12:54 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings.
> 
> Rationality has a place, but so do feelings.
> 
> The names in this package are offensive, plain and simple. 

_To_some_people_. 

I think they're funny, which I think is what was intended by
upstream. I enjoy a gratuitous boob-or-handjob mention as much as the
next 14 year old. On the other hand I don't think the homophobic
user-abuse is funny, but the authors probably do/did (apparently still do
given the change from 'fag' to 'soyboy').

Yes, it's pretty-much the definition of puerile humour. No it's not
inclusive or welcoming. But on balance I think we should err on the
side of live and let live, because this is a very diverse place, we
don't agree on much beyond the benefits of free software, and
providing useful software in Debian is a good thing for all our
downstreams to choose from.

So yes, I'd leave it in, whilst encouraging upstream to reduce the
laddishness, because that is offputting for quite a lot of people, and
is just no longer cool amongst adults. (if it ever was).

Wookey
-- 
Principal hats:  Linaro, Debian, Wookware, ARM
http://wookware.org/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[duck]

Quack,

It seems the project is leaving the decision about Weboob onto me, so 
I'll try to address it.


The diversity statement tells me we should welcome others even if they 
are very different and with conflicting opinions but nothing beyond 
that. There is no policy part that I found helpful.
I discarded heated reaction from the thread of discussion to isolate the 
most constructive remarks.


We've been able to draft guidelines about what we consider not 
acceptable at events and called this "code of conduct". This does not 
need to be universal but in our community we were able to agree on some 
criteria and I think this is making our world better. I don't think we 
should write an infinite list of rules but guidelines based on 
non-emotional objective points to consider.


There was part of the discussion about the intent of these upstream 
authors, but we're not mind reader and in the end the impact on people, 
and solving this if we can, is more important than judging people.


I've also excluded any consideration about the usefulness of this 
software. As long as one single DD is willing to maintain a software it 
is fine being in according to the policy. Also being very useful does 
not grant any special allowance to be nasty.


So I've considered these criteria:

1) is it insulting?
There was an insult targeting homosexuals, but a contributor proposed a 
fix and upstream accepted it without discussion. It should not have been 
there in the first place though.
As for the "boob" part, it is puerile, very bad taste, disturbing that 
people could be so obsessed as to name their software like this, but 
there's no message at all so it cannot be insulting.


2) is it stripping people of their dignity?
According to Wikipedia there are four main categories of problems:

- is it humiliating?
  « It is an emotion felt by a person whose social status, either by 
force or willingly, has just decreased.[1] It can be brought about 
through intimidation, physical or mental mistreatment or trickery, or by 
embarrassment »
  In our case there is no misrepresentation of persons or anything 
implied from the focus on this specific anatomic part.


- is it an instrumentalization or objectification?
  it is clearly objectifying women as a source of sexual attraction. 
There is no message, so no one is trying to sell you cars or manipulate 
you in any way with it though.
  Interestingly the allegory of dignity by Cesare Ripa is quite 
evocative. and a huge amount of what we consider art is often 
emphasizing on the woman's beauty in more or less suggestive ways.
  Weboob is clearly not very subtle about it, but I'm pretty sure other 
representations also make some of us feel uncomfortable.
  Also this representation does not target specific persons and is not 
representing women as weak or submissive.


- is it degrading?
  « These are acts that, even if done by consent, convey a message that 
diminishes the importance or value of all human beings. »
  This does no apply here as there is no depiction of act or even any 
message.


- is it dehumanizing?
  « These are acts that strip a person or a group of their human 
characteristics. It may involve describing or treating them as animals 
or as a lower type of human beings. »
  Apart from objectification already discussed, there is no implication 
that woman are only good for sex or any such message.
  Maybe some of the Weboob authors do not think highly of woman but 
we're discussing the package content and not judging people's thoughts 
(which we cannot be sure to know anyway).



So apart from objectification of women, but without instrumentalization 
or degrading message, I was not able to find serious consequences. As 
much as I would prefer things to be different (I already told upstream 
in the past) I don't feel I have any right or special wisdom allowing me 
to dictate people to act and think differently. Banning content because 
it displease me and make people uncomfortable while no direct harm has 
been found is unlikely to have a positive effect. Consequently unless 
harmful content I'm not aware of is discovered in this package I am not 
going to remove it from the archive. I would consider adding a neutral 
warning message in the package description though, so people can 
individually decide for themselves if this is acceptable from their own 
point of view.


I'll be coming at DebConf this year. Feel free to come and discuss it 
with me.

\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Friday, 20 July 2018 9:01:45 PM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Dmitry is not claiming to disagree; he's stating that he doesn't
> understand.

Excuse me but I have not stated that I don't understand.

Disagreement is not the same as not understanding.
I think our (only) disagreement is regarding severity of the issue.
I think I do understand the problem but I have other concerns regarding side 
effects and consequences as well as concerns for proper justifications.

I've expressed concerns about irrational decisions and dangers of emotional 
judgements based on personal projections.

-- 
Best wishes,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to
assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with
the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche


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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Saturday, 21 July 2018 9:02:15 PM AEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's not an "uncomfortable reference to (a) part of (the) human body".
> It's a wholly inappropriate reference to a part of the *female* body
> often associated with sex, which therefore is a mysogynistic and
> demeaning reference to women.

With all due respect, you did not research the matter enough and neither am 
I... Just as I was checking online dictionaries to see if I've missed 
something as terrible as you say, I've found that "boob" is a reference to 
"embarrassing mistake" or "foolish or stupid person".
Evidence suggests that "weboob" may be semantically interpreted as word play 
around something entirely non sexual.

  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/boob
  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/boob
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boobs
  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en=dictionary%3A%20boobs


Once again, please don't ignore context. Certain words may be used in 
offensive context but they are not necessarily offensive on their own.

Here presumably offensive context appears to be implied, or projected.

Mind that you are promoting the worst possible interpretation and that's not 
a good thing...

-- 
Cheers,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

You have to start with the truth. The truth is the only way that we can
get anywhere. Because any decision-making that is based upon lies or
ignorance can't lead to a good conclusion.
-- Julian Assange, 2010



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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ian Jackson]

Wouter Verhelst writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> > The current policy[1] leaves it up to the maintainers to make this
> > judgement and I don't think a discussion on -devel@ will reach a
> > consensus that would take away the responsibility here.
> 
> That's a good point. However, while the final decision is for the
> maintainers to make, there's no reason why we can't discuss it to bring
> up arguments one way or the other. This can only help the maintainer to
> make the right decision (provided we discuss the actual subject).

I don't think the maintainer's decision about this is "final", no more
than it is about any other interpretation of policy or project
standards or rc-bugginess or licences or anything else.

The policy says that the maintainer should make a decision about this;
but it often says the maintainer should decide this or that and that
does not preclude review by (eg) the release team, ftpmaster, the TC,
or, ultimately, GR.

But the starting point is certainly the maintainer.  And it is good
for maintainer to solicit input, as they have done in this case.

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: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:02:23PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 July 2018 7:43:39 PM AEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > weboob itself is fine, maybe. But there are various other binaries
> > inside the weboob packages that aren't, at least not so much:
> > 
> > wetboobs
> > handjoob
> > boobsize
> > boobtracker
> > 
> > like, seriously.
> 
> Yuck... :( Incredibly tasteless and probably intentionally controversial...
> 
> I see your point and I agree with you yet renaming might still be 
> inappropriate and/or ineffective.

It might be ineffective, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the issue.

> I'd like to see stronger justification for replacing uncomfortable reference
> to part of human body

It's not an "uncomfortable reference to (a) part of (the) human body".
It's a wholly inappropriate reference to a part of the *female* body
often associated with sex, which therefore is a mysogynistic and
demeaning reference to women.

> because why should it be uncomfortable? If double "O" is a problem

The double "o" is not a problem. The reference to boobs is.

> then how are we not offended by Google? If we swap body part reference
> to another body part like "leg" or "arm", it becomes just ridiculous. 

Yes, but that's not what this is about.

> I have no intention to defend this particular package but more interested in 
> principle of justifying such actions.

I'm not. The current situation is terrible. We should fix it.

If we have another similar situation in the future, we can decide then
what we need to do; but we don't need rules for everything, especially
not for matters of (bad) taste.

> > > Asking person to change his name because it is unpleasant to us would be
> > > beyond rude.
> > 
> > This is true, but not relevant to the issue at hand (which is about
> > weboob).
> 
> That was about misuse of diversity statement. My point is about how 
> inappropriate renaming might be, if pushed too far.

Nobody is suggesting that we rename a person, we only suggest to rename
binaries and/or a package. Therefore this is not being pushed too far,
and your tangent is irrelevant.

-- 
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

  -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
 Hacklab

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:34:28AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Matthew Vernon writes:
> > We shouldn't need to have numbers of people having to justify why a
> > particular thing is offensive before we (as a project) try and fix
> > it.
> 
> That works if Debian was a non-diverse groups where everyone had similar
> views on what is offensive.  In that case the maintainer could just have
> done whatever or would not have uploaded the package at all.
> 
> Sadly(?) Debian is too diverse and "we (as a project)" won't agree on
> what is offensive or where what level of offensive content is okay.

We don't need to do that to decide that in *this* instance the mark has been
reached.

> In this case I feel like we might as well try to reach a consensus on
> whether pride parades are a display of sexual depravity, sexual
> liberation or self-objectification; or skipping that part any trying to
> agree if and how pride parades should be fixed.

This is not about pride parades, this is about a number of badly named
programs in a package in Debian.

> The current policy[1] leaves it up to the maintainers to make this
> judgement and I don't think a discussion on -devel@ will reach a
> consensus that would take away the responsibility here.

That's a good point. However, while the final decision is for the
maintainers to make, there's no reason why we can't discuss it to bring
up arguments one way or the other. This can only help the maintainer to
make the right decision (provided we discuss the actual subject).

-- 
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

  -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
 Hacklab

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings.

Rationality has a place, but so do feelings.

The names in this package are offensive, plain and simple. Are other
names offensive? Maybe. Does that mean we should do nothing until we've
come up with some general "rule" as to what's allowed and what's not?

Hell no.

Note, I'm not saying we should kick weboob out. But these names are
offensive, and I think it's fair for us to tell upstream "we don't like
that, please do something about it".

Upstream might well (will probably) say "no". But that doesn't
invalidate the point.

-- 
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

  -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
 Hacklab

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Matthew Vernon]

Jonathan Dowland  writes:

> 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.

[mega snip]

> I'll stop here for now, plenty to discuss already.

FWIW, I am broadly in favour of your suggestions.

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:44:01PM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

I can't help but understand your message as "if you don't agree, you
haven't understood" which I don't find very helpful.


Dmitry is not claiming to disagree; he's stating that he doesn't
understand.

--

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Hi Jonathan,

On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 07:47 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does
> > > that not
> > > explain it?
> > 
> > Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it
> > boils down to
> > "there are many problems like this and we should fix this problem
> > because
> > there are other similar ones"...
> 
> This suggests that you did understand Matthew's reply, but the rest of
> your message implies that you didn't. Honestly I'm not sure I've got the
> skill to explain it to you, I'm not sure I could do a better job than
> Matthew at summarizing the issue. I'm afraid I must bow out, focus on
> fixing the problem, and leave it to others or to self-study for you to
> understand it, if you wish to.

I can't help but understand your message as "if you don't agree, you
haven't understood" which I don't find very helpful.

Is that what you wanted to say?

Ansgar

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ben Hutchings]

On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 13:34 +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
> > explain it?
> 
> Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it boils down to 
> "there are many problems like this and we should fix this problem because 
> there are other similar ones"... 
> 
> I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings. To decide rationally we need 
> to identify inappropriate component.
[...]

This is not a purely rational matter.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
No political challenge can be met by shopping. - George Monbiot



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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ansgar Burchardt]

Matthew Vernon writes:
> We shouldn't need to have numbers of people having to justify why a
> particular thing is offensive before we (as a project) try and fix
> it.

That works if Debian was a non-diverse groups where everyone had similar
views on what is offensive.  In that case the maintainer could just have
done whatever or would not have uploaded the package at all.

Sadly(?) Debian is too diverse and "we (as a project)" won't agree on
what is offensive or where what level of offensive content is okay.

In this case I feel like we might as well try to reach a consensus on
whether pride parades are a display of sexual depravity, sexual
liberation or self-objectification; or skipping that part any trying to
agree if and how pride parades should be fixed.

The current policy[1] leaves it up to the maintainers to make this
judgement and I don't think a discussion on -devel@ will reach a
consensus that would take away the responsibility here.

Ansgar

  [1] 
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/#packages-with-potentially-offensive-content

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 01:34:19PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:

On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:

Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
explain it?


Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it boils down to
"there are many problems like this and we should fix this problem because
there are other similar ones"...


This suggests that you did understand Matthew's reply, but the rest of
your message implies that you didn't. Honestly I'm not sure I've got the
skill to explain it to you, I'm not sure I could do a better job than
Matthew at summarizing the issue. I'm afraid I must bow out, focus on
fixing the problem, and leave it to others or to self-study for you to
understand it, if you wish to.



--

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Friday, 20 July 2018 12:50:12 AM AEST Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
> explain it?

Matthew did not convince me. IMHO his explanation is weak as it boils down to 
"there are many problems like this and we should fix this problem because 
there are other similar ones"... 

I refuse to judge the matter with my feelings. To decide rationally we need 
to identify inappropriate component.
Because trying to aggressively eliminate what makes us feel uncomfortable is 
against diversity, against multi-culturalism, against tolerance.

Can you explain what makes you feel uncomfortable about it?
Is it (semantics of) the word itself or context?

If we recognise word "boobs" as inappropriate in Debian community, doesn't it 
also condemns (good) things like breast feeding in public by association? 
Isn't that too far? We might be doing more harm than good.

I think what stigmatising the word is cultural bias implying negative context 
by interpreting and extrapolating meaning that word itself may not carry. 
Like assuming bad intentions. Why not assume the opposite like some degree of 
admiration?
When we hear word "hair" do we automatically imply dirty/messy hair or a 
beautiful one?

If to you word "boobs" is more inappropriate than it is to me, that's  
probably because you are attaching more negativity to the word.

What seems to be the problem is application of cultural bias to assign 
negative meaning and by doing that we perpetrate the very problem that I'd 
rather destroy.  Maybe if we all try to stop negative interpretations then we 
might have a chance to eliminate the problem instead of supporting it.

I see the whole thing as the other side of multi-culturalism.

If we were from the same culture then it would be easy to agree what's 
(in)appropriate. (Example: showing hair or skin in public).
In multi-cultural society there will be always something you'll probably 
never accept and something that others will never understand about you.
And that's OK as we can still be friends and respect each other as long as we 
don't try too hard to adjust everyone to our standards.


> Do you mean: it would be ridiculous to perform s/boobs/arm/ in the
> package? Indeed it would be.

It is more interesting to explore why would it be ridiculous. Probably not 
because it instantly weakens inappropriate-ness but because it changes 
_nothing_. Other parts of human body can be just as attractive or objectified 
just as much. The same arguments can be made about legs, arms, hair.

If problem is not the (particular) part of human body then what it is?
Not a context - purpose of the software is not offensive. Debian context 
implies no problem either - we are a friendly community. It appears to me 
that the root of the problem is culturally shaped perception. 

Truly multi-cultural society have more to gain from diversity than from 
attempts to adjust each other to certain language standards.


> Or do you mean it would be ridiculous to
> object to *arm* in packages or binary names?  Nobody is doing that.

Not today, not yet anyway... But why not? The same mechanism of distortion 
can be applied to any word for any part of human body.

Another absurd example: "claws" - clearly an offensive reference to ugly or 
malformed human hands. Inappropriate. Let's ban/remove from Debian or 
rename...

IMHO that kind of interpretations are toxic and inappropriate. Why not try to 
think more positive?

-- 
Best wishes,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

I am easily satisfied with the very best.
-- Winston Churchill


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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

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.

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'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.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Jonathan Dowland]

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:02:23PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:

I see your point and I agree with you yet renaming might still be
inappropriate and/or ineffective. I'd like to see stronger
justification for replacing uncomfortable reference to part of human
body because why should it be uncomfortable?


Have you read Matthew Vernon's reply to OP in this thread? Does that not
explain it?


If double "O" is a problem then how are we not offended by Google?


Because double "O" is not the problem.


If we swap body part reference to another body part like "leg" or
"arm", it becomes just ridiculous.


Do you mean: it would be ridiculous to perform s/boobs/arm/ in the
package? Indeed it would be. Or do you mean it would be ridiculous to
object to *arm* in packages or binary names?  Nobody is doing that. Or
do you mean something else?


--

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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 7:43:39 PM AEST Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> weboob itself is fine, maybe. But there are various other binaries
> inside the weboob packages that aren't, at least not so much:
> 
> wetboobs
> handjoob
> boobsize
> boobtracker
> 
> like, seriously.

Yuck... :( Incredibly tasteless and probably intentionally controversial...

I see your point and I agree with you yet renaming might still be 
inappropriate and/or ineffective. I'd like to see stronger justification for 
replacing uncomfortable reference to part of human body because why should it 
be uncomfortable? If double "O" is a problem then how are we not offended by 
Google? If we swap body part reference to another body part like "leg" or 
"arm", it becomes just ridiculous. 

I have no intention to defend this particular package but more interested in 
principle of justifying such actions.


> > Asking person to change his name because it is unpleasant to us would be
> > beyond rude.
> 
> This is true, but not relevant to the issue at hand (which is about
> weboob).

That was about misuse of diversity statement. My point is about how 
inappropriate renaming might be, if pushed too far.

-- 
Regards,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

Continuous effort - not strength or intelligence - is the key to unlocking
our potential.
-- Winston Churchill


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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi Dmitry,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:40:46PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 July 2018 10:50:20 AM AEST Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I think this naming, and the iconography, is all very unfortunate.
> > IMO it is not compatible with Debian's Diversity Statement (which as
> > ou know was ratified by an overwhelming majority of DDs).
> 
> You are overreacting. Name of the package may be tasteless but still not bad 
> enough to justify exclusion. I fear of misuse of diversity statement to 
> justify morally distorted decisions against something mild like this 
> particular case.

I disagree that this is "mild".

weboob itself is fine, maybe. But there are various other binaries
inside the weboob packages that aren't, at least not so much:

wetboobs
handjoob
boobsize
boobtracker

like, seriously.

> Here is an example: I'm aware of legal human name that is offensive and 
> inappropriate in another language. Nobody in the right mind would use 
> diversity statement against people with such names. Even bringing such matter 
> to attention of a person is awkward to say the least and may be even 
> insulting on its own.
> Asking person to change his name because it is unpleasant to us would be 
> beyond rude.

This is true, but not relevant to the issue at hand (which is about
weboob).

[...]

-- 
Could you people please use IRC like normal people?!?

  -- Amaya Rodrigo Sastre, trying to quiet down the buzz in the DebConf 2008
 Hacklab

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Benedikt Wildenhain]

Hello,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 05:40:46PM +1000, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Here is an example: I'm aware of legal human name that is offensive and 
> inappropriate in another language. Nobody in the right mind would use 
that might be possible, but it is not a appropriate comparison in this
case:
-The developer of the program is aware of the meaning of the words, it
is not a random coincidence
-Changing a program's name is much more easy than to change a first name
of a person
-The package is not a person and cannot be offended

> Let's just leave the matter alone please. If contributors find it 
> sufficiently repulsive to maintain the package then you will be able to 
> remove (unmaintained) package soon enough. Otherwise we can say that 
> usefulness of the package outweighs its bad naming.
In fact its bad naming reduces its usefulness: Although there are some
useful programs contained, I know there are people which wouldn't
recommend it because of its naming (not only the package's name but
also because of the programs contained in the package). So if the
package stays in the archive, but would be renamed, its usefulness
would probably be increased.

> Another argument is that many things in older literature, fairy tales and 
> religious texts may be considered offensive these days. Yet banning those 
> things would be wrong and would cause far greater damage to freedoms.
It is not about an ancient work, those programs are fairly recent.

> If we were operating a restaurant, would you suggest to remove all non-
> vegetarian meals from the menu because some of our customers are vegetarians?
> Surely they may consider meat to be offensive but normally it is enough to be 
> respectful to people's rights not to use whatever they consider inappropriate 
> to them.
Probably not, but it would be bad, if we killed an animal for every
vegetarian entering the restaurant. As it is is bad to have every one
creating a Debian mirror distributing this insulting content, which
itself already creates an environment encouraging objectification of
people having boobs (note that one of the programs contained the term
"cook" and wasn't changed for an extra joke).

> I'd much rather not waste any time to facilitate or justify useless
> renaming like "fsckeditor" to "ckeditor", etc.
Did anybody ask you to do so? You didn't have to continue reading this
thread if it only wastes your time.

Kind regards,
Benedikt

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Thursday, 19 July 2018 10:50:20 AM AEST Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think this naming, and the iconography, is all very unfortunate.
> IMO it is not compatible with Debian's Diversity Statement (which as
> ou know was ratified by an overwhelming majority of DDs).

You are overreacting. Name of the package may be tasteless but still not bad 
enough to justify exclusion. I fear of misuse of diversity statement to 
justify morally distorted decisions against something mild like this 
particular case.

Here is an example: I'm aware of legal human name that is offensive and 
inappropriate in another language. Nobody in the right mind would use 
diversity statement against people with such names. Even bringing such matter 
to attention of a person is awkward to say the least and may be even 
insulting on its own.
Asking person to change his name because it is unpleasant to us would be 
beyond rude.

Let's just leave the matter alone please. If contributors find it 
sufficiently repulsive to maintain the package then you will be able to 
remove (unmaintained) package soon enough. Otherwise we can say that 
usefulness of the package outweighs its bad naming.

Another argument is that many things in older literature, fairy tales and 
religious texts may be considered offensive these days. Yet banning those 
things would be wrong and would cause far greater damage to freedoms.

If we were operating a restaurant, would you suggest to remove all non-
vegetarian meals from the menu because some of our customers are vegetarians?
Surely they may consider meat to be offensive but normally it is enough to be 
respectful to people's rights not to use whatever they consider inappropriate 
to them.

I'd much rather not waste any time to facilitate or justify useless renaming 
like "fsckeditor" to "ckeditor", etc.

-- 
Regards,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher
esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche



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

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Ian Jackson]

Marc Dequènes (duck) writes ("Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the 
> name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive. This was 
> already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was reintroduced 
> and has been in the archive since then.

Thanks for your attention to this issue.

I think this naming, and the iconography, is all very unfortunate.
IMO it is not compatible with Debian's Diversity Statement (which as
ou know was ratified by an overwhelming majority of DDs).

This issue is a shame because it sounds like this software is very
useful, and certainly can be a freedom-enhancing tool for those users
who can get past the puerile humour.  So ideally things would be
renamed etc. (upstream if possible, in Debian otherwise).

If renaming it causes compatibility problems for existing users then I
guess we might need a compatibility package (maybe called
oobweb-offensive or something - see Policy 3.1.1).

But, in the end, I'm afraid that right now IMO this is a
release-critical bug for this package.  So - in my view - if renaming
is not practical for any reason, it should be removed from Debian.
This softare, while valuable, is not important enough to compromise on
what I see as an important principle: to maintain a welcoming
environment for everyone within the Debian ecosystem.

> I hope this would help draft proper policy criteria about what we
> consider not acceptable.

We do have the Diversity Statement.  We also have the statement in
Policy 3.1.1:

  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.

I doubt that any useful detailed policy criteria are likely to emerge.
Firstly, generally, it is very difficult to make hard-and-fast rules
for this kind of thing.  Secondly, discussions over rules inevitably
involve considering lots of hypothetical examples, including many
difficult edge cases.  Such discussions can be valuable for technical
rules.  But for social rules it just generates an awful lot of heat
and no light.

Everyone will have their own ideas about what factors are relevant
when making these decisions.  For me, important questions include: how
troublesome the content is; the overall context; whether troublesome
content is or can be appropriately flagged, so that people won't
encounter it unexpectedly and can choose to avoid it; how often people
working cross-distro in Debian may need to interact with the
troublesome material (for example, when doing QA work); to what degree
someone who is trying to get something else useful done is likely to
find a conflict between choosing the most powerful tools and choosing
tools that do not insult them or whatever; etc.  This is hardly an
exhaustive list and everyone will have their own.

One useful guideline to look at by analogy might be the Debconf Code
of Conduct.  It is not perfect of course - nothing like that is.  And
some parts of it are not easily applicable to distro contents rather
than to a conference.  But: it would be impossible to give a sensible
presentation about this package, in its current state, at Debconf.
That's a big red flag.


I want to emphasise that my problem with this package is not based on
some kind of idea of a list of forbidden words, or that I have some
kind of principled objection against specifically and only the use of
body parts as names, or something.

IMO the right way to look at this is to think whether there are people
who are going to be put off, discouraged, insulted, feel like they are
made fun of, etc. - and how badly so.  What matters is not the intent,
or the specific words, but the effect of everything together, in
context.

Looking at the situation with the package, from that perspective:

Humans sadly have a long history of sexual violence by men against
women; that is the culmination of unwanted sexual attention, which is
often framed as "jokes".  And many of the cultures of Debian
contributors and users have a long history of seeing women as good
mainly for sex.  So we should keep the sexual references to
appropriate contexts, such as (for example) situations in our personal
lives which are already sexual or intimate, or (in Debian) the
"offensive fortunes" database.


I'm sure you will get a lot of opinions.  It's probably more valuable
to you to get individual opinions than a lot of to-and-fro, so even
though I feel very strongly about this I will try to avoid replying to
others' opinions unless absolutely necessary.

You should also be aware that the number of opinions you

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Alexander Zangerl]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 22:03:53 +0900, Marc Dequ?nes (duck) writes:
>It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the 
>name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive.

'deemed' by whoever...right, that's very authoritative and i'm
highly impressed. not.

i'm for it to stay. offensive is good.

this universe needs more people with a bit of spine instead
of all this politically correctness nonsense.

regards
az


-- 
Alexander Zangerl + GPG Key 2FCCF66BB963BD5F + http://snafu.priv.at/
"If you want sympathy, look in the dictionary; it's between sex and
syphilis." -- Joe Zeff


signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Daniele Nicolodi]

On 7/18/18 7:03 AM, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the
> name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive. This was
> already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was reintroduced
> and has been in the archive since then.
> 
> Since this is a childish naming which was not intended at being
> insulting, I gave a hand to package this useful tool. I would have
> preferred it renamed though.
> 
> This thread is about giving your opinion and discussing with upstream
> about it, and us DD to decide the fate of this package. I hope this
> would help draft proper policy criteria about what we consider not
> acceptable.

Shouldn't liboobs be removed or renamed too, for the same reasons?

And those other packages too:

buthead
butteraugli
assimp
...

Cheers.
Dan

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Joerg Jaspert]

On 15102 March 1977, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:

> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and
> the name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive.
> This was already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was
> reintroduced and has been in the archive since then.

Back then it was one tool of many in this, mainly, that was drawing bad
attention.

> This thread is about giving your opinion and discussing with upstream
> about it, and us DD to decide the fate of this package. I hope this
> would help draft proper policy criteria about what we consider not
> acceptable.
> May I dare to hope we would discuss this is a civilized manner?

It won't work. Also, this being my only mail in this thread (and none
ever in the other).

This will draw attention, and unfortunately it most likely will draw
attention of the wrong type of people.

I'm sure there is stuff in this package is offending to some. In names
of binaries and possibly in comments of code. I'm sure it is completly
pointless to have that stuff in, and that it would still be great tools
without those childish things.

Now, if upstream would think so too, it wouldn't be there. I highly
doubt it will all be cleaned up, no matter how long this thread.

Remove it then? One possibility. But then, where do we stop? This weboob
thingie is actually a tiny little "wannabe-bad" package only. The
archive has far worse contents. Do we remove them all to get to a nice
clean safe-for(whats the goal? Kids? Sensitive person of [fill in
something]?) archive? Which standard do we apply? Ultra-left? Right?
Conservative Christian? Islamic? Orthodox? Jewish? Gay? Homophobic? One
of those many that I missed? All of them together, because our community
possibly contains members of most, if not all of those, so lets keep
only what all can agree on? Thats a tiny subset.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we can never remove things. And that
we have to accept everything. But we are so big a community, being
offending to a part of us - is a property a lot of packages will have.
:/ Whats the right criteria to apply - independent of this one package
here?

-- 
bye, Joerg

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 10:03:53PM +0900, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote:
> (This is a followup of the thread started on debian-private. This is not a
> private matter at all, and we should have discussed this openly from the
> start.)

No!  It's bad enough that this kind of massive flamewar is going on,
please do not spill it into other lists.  While it generated a few hundred
posts so far, it at least was sort of contained.

> May I dare to hope we would discuss this is a civilized manner?

Considering the response you already got, preaching a certain new
religion-that-doesn't-identify-as-religion, very obviously not.

The package has puerile jokes, but really tame compared to other stuff we
ship in the archive.  Thus, let's not censor things no matter if they're
politically left-, right-, up- or down- aligned.  And hide that thread where
it doesn't draw attention from outside trolls.

It's bad enough with DDs only.


Meow.
-- 
// If you believe in so-called "intellectual property", please immediately
// cease using counterfeit alphabets.  Instead, contact the nearest temple
// of Amon, whose priests will provide you with scribal services for all
// your writing needs, for Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory prices.

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Steve McIntyre]

Matthew Vernon wrote:
>
>Part of the problem, I think, is that there are just so many of these
>"little things", and that together they make up an environment that is
>hostile to folk who aren't male (and, often, white and heterosexual). If
>it was just one "little thing" then perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, but
>it's not, it's hundreds of "little things", and getting any one of them
>improved can involve a vast argument about how this "little thing" isn't
>worth getting worked up about (et seq, et seq).

Exactly this. We can improve the whole with each little thing that we
improve. The fact that a task is large, with many parts to it,
shouldn't put us off from starting it anyway. Hell, who'd have thought
a collection of volunteers could develop and maintain a complete
operating system...?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out
 whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast."
 Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html

Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[Matthew Vernon]

"Marc Dequènes (duck)"  writes:

> It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and
> the name of the binaries and further content was deemed
> offensive. This was already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the
> package was reintroduced and has been in the archive since then.

Briefly, I think it would be good if the names were changed. 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!).

One argument that might be made about this is that "it's not that
offensive, really, why make a fuss?" and thus it's not this particular
thing that is hampering our efforts to make Debian a bit less pale,
male, and stale (and, so, we shouldn't do anything about it).

Part of the problem, I think, is that there are just so many of these
"little things", and that together they make up an environment that is
hostile to folk who aren't male (and, often, white and heterosexual). If
it was just one "little thing" then perhaps it wouldn't be so bad, but
it's not, it's hundreds of "little things", and getting any one of them
improved can involve a vast argument about how this "little thing" isn't
worth getting worked up about (et seq, et seq).

We shouldn't need to have numbers of people having to justify why a
particular thing is offensive before we (as a project) try and fix
it. So, without accusing anyone of anything, I'd like to propose we (or,
ideally, the upstream author) rename weboob et al to make one small step
to being a bit more inclusive.

Regards,

Matthew

-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle."
http://www.debian.org

Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

[duck]

Quack,

(This is a followup of the thread started on debian-private. This is not 
a private matter at all, and we should have discussed this openly from 
the start.)


It has been brought to my attention that this package, its name and the 
name of the binaries and further content was deemed offensive. This was 
already raised in the past (~2012 IIRC) but the package was reintroduced 
and has been in the archive since then.


Since this is a childish naming which was not intended at being 
insulting, I gave a hand to package this useful tool. I would have 
preferred it renamed though.


This thread is about giving your opinion and discussing with upstream 
about it, and us DD to decide the fate of this package. I hope this 
would help draft proper policy criteria about what we consider not 
acceptable.


May I dare to hope we would discuss this is a civilized manner?
\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes