Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13044 > unrolled thread

Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-11-19 16:10 +0100
    Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2022-11-19 17:40 +0100
    Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2022-11-19 17:40 +0100
      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-19 21:50 +0100
        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-11-19 22:10 +0100
        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2022-11-19 23:20 +0100
          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 01:00 +0100
            Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 12:00 +0100
              Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 14:20 +0100
              Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 21:50 +0100
                Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-11-20 22:30 +0100
                  Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Michael Neuffer <neuffer@neuffer.com> - 2022-11-20 23:00 +0100
                    Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 23:30 +0100
                      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Michael Neuffer <neuffer@neuffer.com> - 2022-11-21 00:50 +0100
                        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2022-11-21 01:00 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 03:20 +0100
                            Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 08:10 +0100
                            Aw: Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2022-11-21 16:10 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 03:20 +0100
                            Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-11-21 08:10 +0100
                            Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-22 04:50 +0100
                        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 17:40 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 18:00 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 18:10 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 19:10 +0100
                      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2022-11-21 03:10 +0100
                      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Tiago Bortoletto Vaz <tiago@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 03:10 +0100
                  Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 11:40 +0100
                    Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> - 2022-12-14 00:00 +0100
                      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-12-14 10:10 +0100
                        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2022-12-14 18:50 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 22:40 +0100
                        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2022-12-14 23:10 +0100
                      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "Roberto A. Foglietta" <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> - 2022-12-14 10:10 +0100
                Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 00:50 +0100
                  Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 06:00 +0100
                  Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 08:10 +0100
                    Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> - 2022-11-21 16:10 +0100
                      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 21:30 +0100
                        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? nick black <dankamongmen@gmail.com> - 2022-11-21 23:00 +0100
                        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-11-22 06:50 +0100
                          Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2022-12-17 20:20 +0100
                            Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-18 23:20 +0100
                              Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-12-19 06:30 +0100
                              Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? "G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> - 2022-12-19 17:40 +0100
                              Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> - 2022-12-20 18:00 +0100
                Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 11:40 +0100
      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2022-11-21 23:10 +0100
        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2022-11-22 07:00 +0100
        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <alexander@alphamar.org> - 2022-11-22 10:50 +0100
    Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Judit Foglszinger <urbec@riseup.net> - 2022-11-20 12:00 +0100
      Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 12:20 +0100
        Re: Fortunes-off - do we need this as a package for Bookworm? David Prévot <david@tilapin.org> - 2022-11-20 15:50 +0100
    Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 21:50 +0100
      Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values "Andrew M.A. Cater" <amacater@einval.com> - 2022-11-20 22:00 +0100
        Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 22:30 +0100
        Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-21 00:00 +0100
        Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> - 2022-11-21 03:10 +0100
      Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2022-11-20 23:40 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#13091

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 02:25:10PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2022-11-21T07:58:29-0700, Sam Hartman wrote:

[....]

> Thanks, Sam.  (And Tomas, to whom I have an unfinished reply lingering
> in my postponed folder.)

Don't bother much. Other than Sam's, my message is not that deep
that it deserves reply :-)

[lots and lots snipped, although believe me, I've read every
word: I do enjoy your eloquence and erudition]

> But, since you asked, that's my sketch for a future fortunes-nsfw or
> whatever.  (Let's please be honest enough to admit that the original
> purpose of the package's segregation was attempted avoidance of
> interactions with U.S. corporate HR departments.)

I'd be careful in that: Debian's user (and contributor) base has
expanded a lot since Day Zero (or well, I've been looking at it
since Day One or so). Nowadays there are probably believing Muslims
or national Chinese around, who may be hurt by things "we",
steeped in white male western culture we may not even see. So the
ability to listen, to overcome the "nah, that ain't so bad" first
reaction becomes ever more important.

I think the kind of curation envisioned here can only be a very
careful collective work. I haven't even myself an idea how to
try to tackle that.

Perhaps even this "one category" of a fortunes-off is a reflection
of our very simplistic asymmetrical-dualistic (one Heaven and one
Hell) view of things, I don't know.

You say "contextualize", but how do you contextualize Anita Bryant
to some person socialised at the other end of the world? As a
bog standard European, I, at least, have a slim chance to understand
what you are talking about, but...

> > But please don't fan the flames.
> 
> Fear not; I feel my resolve flagging apace.  I should see a doctor about
> my inability to sustain a flame war.  There may be a drug for me.

Don't do drugs. At least, not against this :-)

Thanks for the links. I just followed one (working class history).
Bandwidth, alas.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13125

tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

>I'd be careful in that: Debian's user (and contributor) base has
>expanded a lot since Day Zero (or well, I've been looking at it
>since Day One or so). Nowadays there are probably believing Muslims
>or national Chinese around, who may be hurt by things "we",
>steeped in white male western culture we may not even see. So the
>ability to listen, to overcome the "nah, that ain't so bad" first
>reaction becomes ever more important.
I have been around long enough to remember when in 2004 a very prominent
developer of Chinese origins hurriedly left the project when the
d-i (?) team refused to mention Taiwan in the way he preferred.
So, there is not much that we have not already seen...

I am late to this thread, so I will just say that:
- I appreciate a lot of what Branden and Sam wrote here
- people complaining about "cancel culture" are often idiots
- I have other fights to deal with
- the outcome is sad

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13126

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

At 2022-12-17T19:02:11-0000, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I have been around long enough to remember when in 2004 a very
> prominent developer of Chinese origins

...but in Australia at the time and, I have heard, residing there still.

> hurriedly left the project when the d-i (?) team refused to mention
> Taiwan in the way he preferred.

Yes.  It needed to be "Taiwan, Province of China".

Since then it's possible we'd have had to change it to "Chinese
Taipei".[1]

As I said in that same conversation, he was a capable guy.  I'm sorry we
lost him.  But it was right for us not to pay the price he demanded.

> So, there is not much that we have not already seen...

I'd like to quote a friend of mine who fights a lot of these battles.

--snip--
Another thing I find objectionable: exhibitionist etymological
offense-taking. I have never met a South Asian person offended by the
word "thug." But I have listened to white people show off their
knowledge of etymology and history by being offended on South Asian
people's behalf and white people being offended on behalf of Alaskan
natives over the use of the word "Eskimo." Actually, not only have I
listened to them: I HAVE BEEN THEM.

If you want to be offended on someone's behalf, you might want to
inquire about what actually offends them. It may surprise you.

But of course, this gets to the root of offense-taking. The taking of
proxy offense is a social strategy used by people when they feel their
social status is threatened.

The same impulse that made baroque South Carolina planters beat black
men in the street for looking at "their" women in the wrong way is what
powers indirect offense-taking. It makes it appear that you are
controlling social boundaries and have the power to defend your
inferiors from harm.
--snip--

White-knighting can be, and often is, another form of tech-bro alpha
dogging.  We would do well to recall the restrictive gender roles and
patriarchal hegemony prescribed by the rules of feudal chivalry.  (I
don't think it's any accident that some of these same nobility ended up
owning plantations and establishing military schools in the U.S. South.)

> I am late to this thread, so I will just say that:
> - I appreciate a lot of what Branden and Sam wrote here

Thank you!  I remember getting into a lot of arguments with you back in
the day.  I can't remember what any of them was about.  🤣

> - the outcome is sad

Did you see the part where I ITA-ed fortune-mod?

No one has yet responded my invitation to be a technical consultant to
save my geriatric packaging skills from embarrassment.  This may be
because people are easily fatigued of reading my emails.  There are
darker possibilities.

I'll muddle through on my own if I need to.

But, first, groff.

Regards,
Branden

[1] https://www.euronews.com/2021/07/26/what-is-chinese-taipei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13127

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sun, Dec 18, 2022 at 04:07:25PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2022-12-17T19:02:11-0000, Marco d'Itri wrote:

[...]

> --snip--
> Another thing I find objectionable: exhibitionist etymological
> offense-taking [...]

> White-knighting can be, and often is, another form of tech-bro alpha
> dogging [...]

Thanks for this one. It is indeed a fine (and often fractal) line
between solidarity and the paternalistic behaviour so well describe
above. We can't do other than try. And be aware that we might be
failing.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13128

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

At 2022-12-18T16:07:28-0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Did you see the part where I ITA-ed fortune-mod?
> 
> No one has yet responded my invitation to be a technical consultant to
> save my geriatric packaging skills from embarrassment.  This may be
> because people are easily fatigued of reading my emails.

Three people have now contacted me offering help, which should be enough
for a simple package like fortunes-mod.[1]

I hereby withdraw my whinge and plea.

Thank you!

Regards,
Branden

[1] By saying "simple" I risk giving a hostage to fortune, but I am not
    expecting an XFree86-scale challenge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13133

g.branden.robinson@gmail.com wrote:

>I'd like to quote a friend of mine who fights a lot of these battles.
Great insight.

>Thank you!  I remember getting into a lot of arguments with you back in
>the day.  I can't remember what any of them was about.  🤣
Mostly you and a few other people adding new meanings to the DFSG. :-)

>> - the outcome is sad
>Did you see the part where I ITA-ed fortune-mod?
No, that's good.
But actually my main complaint is about the (total lack) of process in
how an outcome was reached.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13079

"G. Branden Robinson" <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote on 20/11/2022 at 19:28:59+0100:

> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for D19E9C7D71266DCE created at 2022-11-20T19:28:52+0100 using RSA]]
> At 2022-11-20T11:41:56+0100, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> I'm personally fine to defend the "less neutral" position we take by
>> dropping fortunes-off which is total garbage.
>
> "Total garbage."  Have you _read_ it?

Yep, not fully, but as a rule of thumb, there's probably between 10 and
25% really offensive garbage in it. The remaining is not really worthy
IMO.

So either someone *wants* to take the time to filter out any problematic
quote or I'd rather throw the lot.
-- 
PEB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13089

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 2022-11-19 at 11:31, Dominik George wrote:

>> The specific query was about Nazi quotes from someone in Europe - I
>> don't believe our database currently contains these, as they were
>> purged from the BSD package from which ours is derived but I would
>> be prepared to be very wrong here.
>> 
>> The point was made that if the database did contain Nazi quotes / a
>> swastika it might make it illegal to host the content on mirrors in
>> at least Germany or Austria.
> 
> ❯ apt source fortunes-off

[snip]

> ❯ grep -ri "Mein Kampf" fortune-mod-1.99.1/datfiles | wc -l
> 52
> 
> 
> The question is not whether hosting is illegal (I don't think it is).
> 
> The question is whether we promote Nazi ideology or not. And the
> answer is clearly "No", and that is a fact, not sumething that is up
> for discussion.

I would like to take what I think is a slightly different disagreeing
angle from those who have objected to this thus far.

I run with 'fortune -a` in my ~/.bashrc, so I see an excerpt from the
fortunes database - the full scope of that database, including
fortunes-off - with every terminal I open. As such, I have sometimes
seen these quotes from Hitler in those locations.

I have never once interpreted them as promoting Nazi ideology. Rather, I
have always interpreted them as being a useful reminder of the sorts of
things that Nazis said and stood for - and it's important to remember
those things, both in terms of remembering the things that Nazis *did*,
and so that we have the additional warning if we ever find ourselves at
risk of stepping towards the same paths.

I have the vague impression that I may have also occasionally seen a
quote in this way which I would have found utterly unobjectionable if it
hadn't been marked as being from Hitler. Those too have value - both in
that they can serve as a warning of the directions which seemingly
unobjectionable sentiments can lead towards, and in that they can (more
rarely) help remind us that a good sentiment or insight is not rendered
less good just because a horrible person also felt the same way.

I am not always - nor, indeed, often - pleased to see one of these
quotes come up in a new terminal, but they do serve as helpful / useful
reminders, and I would not be pleased to see them vanish entirely.
Indeed, I would probably wind up going out of my way to install the most
recent version of that leaf package from snapshot.d.o, until such time
as a better way of retaining access to these uncomfortable but important
reminders could be arranged.


I'll also note that most (all but three) of the named "Mein Kampf"
excerpts are found in the 'atheism' file; their purpose there seems to
be to argue against (Christian) religion by pointing out the degree to
which Hitler claimed to adhere to it, not to glorify Nazism or Hitler's
own views in any direct way. As such, the claim that shipping these
quotes constitutes "promoting Nazi ideology" seems rather wide of the
mark.

There are also rather a few other quotes from Nazis, including Hitler,
in that file which do not come from "Mein Kampf"; they seem to all be in
that same vein, of advocating for atheism by pointing out its opponents.
But if you're wanting to cite the presence of such quotes as reason to
drop this package, or these quotes from this package, then you're
undercounting to some noticeable degree.

There are also quite a few non-Mein-Kampf quotes from Hitler in the
'politics' file, which from a skim seem to be mostly or entirely in the
vein of "warning of how dangerous a particular line of thought can be,
by reminding that Hitler promulgated it".

That latter file also includes a quote which *is* from Mein Kampf, and
strikes me as relevant to the modern political moment, in that it's been
referenced continually throughout the US political-news media for the
past couple of years:

>>> The broad mass of a nation... will more easily fall victim to a
>>> big lie than to a small one.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.         -- George Bernard Shaw

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13092

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 04:59:49PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:

[...]

> I have never once interpreted them as promoting Nazi ideology. Rather, I
> have always interpreted them as being a useful reminder of the sorts of
> things that Nazis said and stood for [...]

Context.

I wouldn't ever have, myself. But we share one (very narrow) context.

As an anecdote: I was for two weeks in Cairo (taking a course in
Arabic language). The whole setup was pretty immersive, living in
a flat in some pretty normal part of the city. Just normal shopping,
public transport, the whole thing. When people heard we were learning
their language, they even got more talkative (although talks mostly
ended up in English: their English was usually much more usable
than our Arabic, but hey).

More than once we heard from them "Hitler, good man". We cringed
(without showing too much of it) and tried to explain carefully
that, back in Germany, most of us didn't like this guy very much.

Cheers
-- 
t

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13093

Hi!

* The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> [221121 22:59]:
[ description of running fortunes on login ]
> I am not always - nor, indeed, often - pleased to see one of these
> quotes come up in a new terminal, but they do serve as helpful / useful
> reminders, [..]

I appreciate that you brought up your argument, which as far as I can
see is the first argument based upon the benefit such a package would
bring, not based upon what I for simplicity will call ideology.  So
thanks for that!

I'm also glad, that you already found a solution to fit your use case,
as I also think that most of its content should not be kept in Debian,
for the reasons other explained better in other mails.


Best regards,
  Alexander

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13054

Hi,

> This does raise the wider question: we're about to freeze for Bookworm.
> Removing leaf packages and packages with a small user count might be profitable
> at this point. Fortune-mod has some bugs at the moment preventing testing
> transition and has had several NMUs prior to the latest upload.

fortune-mod has no bugs that prevent testing migration,
it just needs a source-only upload.
Also the NMUs it had where 
1. the no changes source NMU from holger, that happened to a big number of packages
2. a recent NMU to remove the fortunes-off binary package

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13055

On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 16:44 +0600, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
> fortune-mod has no bugs that prevent testing migration,
> it just needs a source-only upload.

Hah, an easy bug to fix :-)  I did that just now (1:1.99.1-7.3).

Ansgar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13057

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Le 20/11/2022 à 12:10, Ansgar a écrit :
> On Sun, 2022-11-20 at 16:44 +0600, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
>> fortune-mod has no bugs that prevent testing migration,
>> it just needs a source-only upload.
> 
> Hah, an easy bug to fix :-)  I did that just now (1:1.99.1-7.3).

Thank you.

taffit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13058 — Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

TL;DR: I think that we need to be significantly more permissive of ideas
expressed in software in our archive, especially for software that
exhibits creative speech, than we do conduct in our community.  I do not
think that the Code of Conduct is an appropriate tool for judging
software in Debian.  For that and related reasons, I do not think the
Community Team is a good team to make such judgments.

For the long version:

We've talked about how not all conduct is welcome in our community.
There are different reasons people have supported the CoC, Diversity
Statement, and related decisions.
For me, two factors are most important.  First, I believe that by being
welcoming to a large community, we can build a better free software
operating system.  We must reject intolerance and promote respect to be
welcoming to the largest community.
Second, I enjoy working in respectful, welcoming communities, and for
selfish reasons I'd like to encourage Debian to be welcoming to me.


People have argued that Debian does not need to promote free speech
within our community--that there are ideas, topics, and styles of
discourse that make the community less welcoming, and they don't belong
here.  We've argued that in many cases, that is not a huge restriction
because those same topics are not related to free software or the work
we've gathered here to do.  People have made analogies to  the conduct
we approach in professional settings/while at work.
And yes, we've had disagreements about all that.

EVEN IF YOU BUY INTO THAT, SOFTWARE WE PACKAGE IS DIFFERENT.

First, Debian has significant power as a distribution.
If your software is in Debian, it is more available than if it is not.
If I can type `apt install your_software_name` and get the software on
my system, your software is easy to get to.  No, Debian is not the only
influential software distribution channel, but it is a powerful one.
Removing software from Debian because of its values does have a chilling
effect;it works to curve and suppress those values.
No, it's not as big of a chilling effect as people breaking into your
house in the middle of the night.
But it is restricting the flow of ideas—restricting speech in a way that
limiting conduct in our community is not.
We do not have as much power as a government, but when we remove
software from our archives because of the ideas it expresses, we are
using that significant power we have to force our views about what
values are appropriate on the world.  We, in a position of power, are
exercising that power to restrict speech.
I understand people will disagree with me, but in my mind, that’s
censorship.

Censorship is not always bad.  I think the c-word is appropriate because
it reminds us of the responsibility that comes with choosing to use our
power in that way and the consequences of abusing that power.
Again, Debian censoring its archive is no where near as consequential as
government censorship.  I respect others may use different words like
moderation rather than censorship.  I trust you will respect my choice
here, just as I respect the reasons why others might choose differently.

There are times when we will need to reject software because of its
ideas.  As an example, some content is not content we can legally
distribute.  We have chosen generally not to distribute sexually
explicit content because of legal and other complexities.

We also reject software for many  other reasons unrelated to the ideas
it expresses.  It might not meet our quality standards.  We might not
have someone who wants to maintain it.  We might not be able to keep up
with dependencies.  I’m explicitly not talking about any of that.

Also, individual maintainers make content decisions all the time.  They
might rephrase something that people find objectionable.  I  support
maintainers having wide latitude to do this.

But I think the bar for rejecting software from our archive because of
its ideas should be really high.  Not insurmountable, but really high.

1) Freedom of speech is something I value.    Having a wide variety of
ideas expressed—even ideas I strongly reject—is part of what makes a
good free software distribution in my mind.  I don’t know that the
project has taken a position on this, but for myself, that kind of
freedom and inclusivity is something I value.  I do think that sections
of the DFSG that ban discrimination against fields of endeavor suggest
that we may be leaning in the pro-freedom direction.  Similarly, the
Dissident Test suggests we at least value users who have unpopular
ideas.  Again, that’s not the same as arguing we should permit the
software with those unpopular ideas, but it suggests to me that we may
be leaning that way.
Regardless of how far we have made such a decision in the past, I hope
we will generally choose to value free speech in this direction.

2) If we censor software, we need to decide what form of censorship is
appropriate.  If the bar isn’t really high, Debian is going to be a very
unwelcoming place while we hash all that out.  Some things are probably
easy—I bet we have a consensus that if ftpmaster or the mirror team says
we cannot legally distribute something, it’s gone at least until someone
pays for and obtains a legal opinion saying otherwise that ftpmaster
finds compelling.  I bet we have a strong consensus that if no one wants
to maintain something, or no DD wants to initially sponsor something, it
 doesn’t belong in our archive.

But imagine if we wanted to censor things that disagreed with our values
about hot political issues like gender identity, medical issues, or the
environment.
We’d have to figure out what those values are.
And suddenly a bunch of conversations that didn’t need to happen in
Debian become directly related to the core mission of Debian–making our
free software operating system.
It’s a lot easier to decide that in our interactions in Debian we’re
going to respect people’s identities than it is to agree on values to
judge software against.

Even answering questions like “is that referring to an idea we reject
talking about historical context, or is it promoting the idea,” could
get very thorny and messy.



3) I think censorship is particularly problematic the more creative
speech is.
The games section of Debian includes fiction.  For games, creative
freedom, and the ability to explore a bunch of ideas is the entire
point.  Often exploring things we find distasteful can be valuable.
Making these judgments get very dicey.  I think back to one of my
favorite games as a kid: the Ur-Quan Masters.  These days it is in our
archive (non-free so not in Debian).
Depending on how you view the game, you might argue it promotes suicide,
sexual objectification, sexual promiscuity, slavery, and genocide.  Or
perhaps you look at things a little differently and argue it’s all about
cultural openness, fighting oppression, building community across racial
boundaries, and scientific progress.
I hope we choose to decide making those decisions is up to individual
maintainers whenever possible.

As a creative artist, I get really nervous reading Andrew’s mail.
This stuff is very personal to me.  I face censorship of large platforms
like Amazon that decide which ideas they promote and which ideas they
relegate to tolerated disreputable status (and which they outright
reject).
I don’t want to be part of seeing Debian turn into that.

I note that fortune-off is in the games section and in my mind should be
held to the most permissive standards.

I think there is an argument that the further away from the core of the
software an idea is, the lower the bar might be for censorship.  As an
example, take weboob.  I am not arguing that we should bring weboob
back.  I’m bringing it up to argue about where we might draw lines.  In
the interest of full disclosure, if it came to a GR, I might well 
have voted that if someone wanted to maintain weboob, they should be
able to.  I’m not sure; that case was on a border for me.  It was
complicated because the sexual humor was so far removed from the primary
purpose of the software.  You don’t need sexual humor to have command
line tools for interacting with the web without a browser.  The major
functions of the software would not be reduced by using different
imagery.

I think the bar is even lower as we get into source code comments,
revision control comments, and internals.  There, we begin to move our
focus in towards the community of developers, and the CoC starts to
apply in my mind.  I absolutely would not have supported the homophobic
comments in the weboob source code.  (My recollection of the situation
is they were eventually removed upstream–perhapss not in the most
professional way, but were generally removed.)

========================================

Because I think  we should have a high bar for censoring software, and
because I do not think the CoC should apply to the content of software,
I think the Community Team should not be involved in deciding what
software is appropriate in Debian.
The Community Team is by its nature made up of people who are ready to
say “Hey, that’s not appropriate.”  The Community Team does consider
each case; they are also willing to say “hey, we don’t see a CoC
violation here,” but they are not afraid to say “that’s not cool.”
That’s their job.  Even when the CT doesn’t see a CoC violation, they
often ask whether people could adopt different approaches that might
work well for everyone involved.
Again, that’s what we need to create a welcoming community.

That is not what I want to see for rejecting software because of its
ideas.
I want us to feel discomfort for doing that.
I want it to be rare enough that we don’t have a group of people in the
business of saying “yes, that doesn’t meet our values.”  I want each
instance to feel a bit uncomfortable, to be a bit difficult.
And so I think the very things that makes the CT good at what we’ve
charged them to do, make them a bad fit for the kind of decisions we’re
talking about in this thread.

========================================

Coming back to the package that starts this, unless fortune-off is a lot
worse than I remember, I think that fortune-off is well below the bar
where censorship is appropriate.  If ftpmaster decides it cannot legally
be distributed, that’s one thing.  I hope they would give a stronger
justification than I’ve seen in this thread.

That said, if the fortune maintainers choose not to distribute
fortune-off, and no one wants to take it up, I’m fine with that.  Again,
I think the bar for maintainer action should be a lot lower than the bar
for we as a project won’t do something.

========================================

I feel very strongly about this issue.

Here are my commitments:

1) If a DD wants to see fortune-off in Debian, and runs into political
trouble making that happen, I will provide my skills at understanding
Debian process and governance and will try to help overcome the
political obstacles.  If you are such a DD and run into trouble, reach
out to me.

2)  I will try and build a consensus that we want the bar to be high for
rejecting software from Debian based on the ideas it expresses.

3)If we fail to get a consensus behind point 2, I will work to draft a
GR establishing such a principle.
Obviously I won’t go draft a GR if a consensus against my position
emerges.

Thanks for your consideration,

–Sam

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13060 — Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values

Hi Sam,

I respect absolutely what you say. I'm not sure that fortunes-offensive has any particular literary
merit, I'm not sure myself that, now that the separate binary for fortunes-off has been removed,
that the dat file merits inclusion. It was a leaf package on a small games package that is optional
and not with a high popcon value.

If we're going to get Bookworm out, now is a good time to be thinking of things that could usefully
be removed to lower a maintenance burden

I didn't raise this as censorship. You may have noticed that I explicitly *didn't* raise this as 
a member of Community Team but as myself, though I did mention that a query had come to CT about the
Mein Kampf quotes and I wondered if the simpler solution was just to remove them / the package.
[Thanks to Dominik George for grepping them out for me in his reply]

I suspect there is also a slight difference of understanding of the merits of free speech on either
side of the Atlantic: it's a cultural thing and I suspect I tend to the European side here :)

I'm not going to die in a ditch over this but I raised it as a genuine query to the project in good faith
and without any agenda.

All best, as ever,

Andy Cater

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13062 — Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater <amacater@einval.com> writes:

    Andrew> I'm not going to die in a ditch over this but I raised it as
    Andrew> a genuine query to the project in good faith and without any
    Andrew> agenda.

I appreciate that.  I hope my message was received in the spirit of an
answer  to the general query.

I personally am not going to get involved in fortune-off/the data file
unless someone asks me personally to get involved.
I am very interested in the general issue, and I hope that my message
made my personal position clear.

I fully acknowledge that this is a cultural issue and I am embedded in
my culture.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13066 — Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 08:54:14PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> 
> I suspect there is also a slight difference of understanding of the merits of free speech on either
> side of the Atlantic: it's a cultural thing and I suspect I tend to the European side here :)
> 
Thank you for acknowledging this.  One of the things that frustrates me
tremendously is when we pretend to be neutral and unbiased (both things
which are mere illusions, and often strong self-delusions at that) and
then go around forcing some view, belief, or idea on others without any
regard for validity of the views, beliefs, or ideas that must
necessarily be displaced for those upon whom the new views, ideas, or
beliefs are being imposed.

If we could simply drop the pretense and honestly state "I am/we are
advocating for such and such and I/we fully acknowledge that such and
such is superior to whatever it must displace in your own worldview
because (insert reasons)", then I would find that much more forthright
than what we go around doing now.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13071 — Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sunday, 20 November 2022 21:54:14 CET Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> If we're going to get Bookworm out, now is a good time to be thinking of
> things that could usefully be removed to lower a maintenance burden

Sorry, but I find this a non-argument.
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fortune-mod doesn't indicate it was a 
maintenance burden at all and the removal of the binary package solved* a
non-Release Critical (severity=normal : https://bugs.debian.org/904882) bug.

This discussion and all the people looking up this package and the time and 
(mental) energy spend on this issue**, is also NOT spend on actual RC bugs.

> I suspect there is also a slight difference of understanding of the merits
> of free speech on either side of the Atlantic: it's a cultural thing and I
> suspect I tend to the European side here :)

I'm European and I'm very much on the Free Speech side.

*) Incorrectly, IMO. The request was for a clearer name of the package.

**) I've rewritten this reply several times and in the end removed large parts 
of it. And it's costing me quite some time and energy NOT to respond to 
several posts in this thread. Time and energy which could have been spend on 
more useful/productive things. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13065 — Re: Removing software because we disagree with its values

Hi Sam,

Thanks very much for taking the time to thoughfully articulate your
thoughts.  I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what you wrote.

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 01:05:15PM -0700, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> 2)  I will try and build a consensus that we want the bar to be high for
> rejecting software from Debian based on the ideas it expresses.
> 
I wholeheartedly agree with this and I would like to express my support
for it.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web