Ian Jackson wrote: > >So to be concrete, how about this: > > N. Packages with potentially offensive content > > As a maintainer you should make a judgement about whether the > contents of a package is appropriate to include, whether it needs > any kind of content warning, and whether some parts should be split > out into a separate package (so that users who want to avoid certain > parts can do so). In making these decisions you should take into > account the project's views as expressed in our Diversity Statement. > > If you split out (potentially) offensive or disturbing material into > a separate package, you should usually mark this in the package name > by adding "-offensive". For example, "cowsay" vs > "cowsay-offensive". In this situation the "-offensive" package can > be Suggested by the core package(s), but should not be Recommended > or Depended on, so that it is not installed by default. > >This is hopefully vague enough that everyone can agree it ?
Looks good to me, yes. >> Maybe we can experiment with some voluntary guidelines for maintainers >> to work out any bugs *before* we merge it with policy? > >IME trying to write guidelines like this often involves arguments over >hypothetical or unreal situations, and can raise a lot of concerns >that don't need to be resolved in practice to solve real issues. Agreed. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com You raise the blade, you make the change... You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane...
