On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 04:34:40PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> The standard that we hold *ourselves* to is considerably more than just
> "don't be racist" for any definition of racist. The code of conduct we
> passed via GR says:
>
> 1. Be respectful
>
> In a project the size of Debian, inevitably there will be people with
> whom you may disagree, or find it difficult to cooperate. Accept that,
> but even so, remain respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor
> behaviour or personal attacks, and a community in which people feel
> threatened is not a healthy community.
>
> I think that's the relevant point, and respectful is a much higher
> standard than simply "not racist." It also, directly to your point,
> applies to behavior towards anyone in the project.
>
> But that's not directly relevant to the contents of *packages*, and
> therefore not particularly useful for resolving the point of this thread.
This is an accurate statement, I would think.
When I wrote the code of conduct, I did not make it explicit that I
thought it was not meant to apply to the contents of packages, but I
think that anyone who reads it can understand that this is the case by
the language used.
However, I think it's clear by now that we need a project-wide consensus
on what policies apply to the contents of packages. This discussion
keeps popping up, and we don't really have a good answer, since we never
had a GR about the subject.
I think we should, so hence my posting this to -vote. Please follow up
there.
I can see four options that would hold relevancy in a vote like this:
- The code of conduct applies, unmodified, to all source code in all our
packages
- The code of conduct does not apply to any contents of any of our
packages, and no alternative code of conduct is required (i.e.,
everything is allowed for our packages)
I do not believe either of these two options are appropriate, but
they're opinions that someone could validly hold.
- The code of conduct applies to all program messages or documentation
texts that could be seen by a user in the normal use of a Debian
system, as well as to anything written by a Debian developer for the
Debian project. However, the following exceptions apply:
- Quotes by historic people when provided in appropriate context,
- Historic texts that are widely disemminated outside of Debian.
The main paragraph mentions "program messages (...) that could be seen
by a user in the normal use of a Debian system", which does not
encompass things like offensive messages in source code comments, or
problematic variable names. This is not an accident; we are not the
morality police, and I think it serves no purpose for us to try to patch
out code of conduct-violating things in upstream source code. This is
not because I think things like that are not a problem; rather, because
I think it is a fight that should be fought upstream, not in Debian.
Meanwhile, we should not remove packages from Debian just because
there's one four-letter word directed at a particular person in a fringe
comment in a barely-used part of the source code.
The first exception would allow for things like quotes from Mein Kampf
in a fortunes-off package or in a package that generally discusses the
atrocities committed by the Nazis and provides the quote for context;
the second one would allow things like religious texts or medieval
literature.
I considered adding an exception for "quotes that are in a package
explicitly marked as not following this rule" to allow for fortunes-off
packages containing anything the maintainer thinks is reasonable; but I
am not sure that it would be welcomed by most people in our community,
and also think that this opens the door to far too much, and I would
rather have a rule that sets explicit exceptions for particular types of
offensive contents like I did before. I would be open to adding more
exceptions if they're reasonable, these are just the two that I can
think of right now.
Finally, there is also,
- The code of conduct does not apply to the contents of any of our
packages, but a code of contents should be written that will apply to
that.
This last option is a lot of work, and I'm quite sure I do not have the
time or inclination to do any of that. I think that anyone proposing
this type of alternative should make sure that they have a text to go
with it, otherwise we're discussing hypotheticals rather than solutions.
I intend to make this a formal GR proposal with the third option in the
above list a few weeks from now, unless the thread is still full-on and
productive by then.
--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}
I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.
