On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 09:30:38PM -0400, Tiago Bortoletto Vaz wrote: > > I'm feeling somewhat uneasy, and/because I think we have a logical problem > > here: > > - The CoC is about interaction between people; > > - what we are discussiong right now is accaptable contents of packages > > (messages, texts). > > > > That's categorically different; I can't be respectful, assume good faith, be > > collaborative, be concise, be open, etc. against a text (as I can be about > > other people's behaviour). > > > > I see the point in this topic about creating rules about what texts we want > > and don't want to have in Debian. But I strongly think that framing this as > > "application of the Debian CoC for packages" is a logical dead end. - If we > > want this, we need to create some new "What language is acceptable in > > Debian" rules. > That's my understanding as well. As much as I appreciate Wouter's > efforts on this, I'm having trouble to imagine an explicitly link > between the Debian CoC and such set of rules in practical terms. > > Also, it seems to me that we're talking about an issue that isn't a > recurrent problem in the project, so it perhaps doesn't really need new > rules, a GR or another long thread in -vote.
+1 to everything quoted above.
> Honest question: in ~30 years, how many packages have been removed from
> our archive due to offensive content? 4? 5? How many of the removal
> requests turned into big drama?
5 and 3 I think.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Manchmal kommt der Wind von Lee. (Konny)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
