Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Ian Jackson-2
Package: release.debian.org
Control: block 906119 by -1

(I sent this as a plain email, after asking on #debian-release what
the best representation in the BTS would be, but I didn't get a useful
reply, so I am resending this as a bug report without any useful
tags.  Sorry for any inconvenience.)

Hi.

Dear Release Team, would you please decide whether
  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906119
is, in your opinion, RC ?

(Also, as I imagine this is not so easy, can you please let me know
when I should expect to hear back?)

Marc Dequènes (duck) writes ("Re:  Gratuitous sexual references"):
> Control: tag -1 wontfix
> Control: severity -1 wishlist

As I wrote in my initial mail:

 | If you as maintainer disagree with my assessment, then we should
 | refer the dispute about the bug severity to the Release Team, in
 | accordance with usual practice.

So I am doing that now.

I also wrote:

 | For the avoidance of doubt: if the Release Team feel the project's
 | consensus is not sufficiently clear; or that a removal decision by
 | the Release Team would lack legitimacy, I would quite understand.
 | In that case the right next step would be a General Resolution.  If
 | necessary I will propose and/or sponsor a GR to definitively
 | establish Debian's view that this package is unacceptable.

Marc suggested the TC.  I don't think the TC is appropriate for this
question.

But of course the Release Team could delegate this decision to the TC.
Or, the Release Team might want to informally consult the TC, or other
relevant people in Debian such as the DPL, ftpmaster or the
antiharassment team.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Ian Jackson-2
Ian Jackson writes ("weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> Dear Release Team, would you please decide whether
>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906119
> is, in your opinion, RC ?

Hi.  Are you still thinking about this, please ?  How long should I
wait for a reply ?

Thanks,
Ian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Niels Thykier
Ian Jackson:

> Ian Jackson writes ("weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
>> Dear Release Team, would you please decide whether
>>   https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906119
>> is, in your opinion, RC ?
>
> Hi.  Are you still thinking about this, please ?  How long should I
> wait for a reply ?
>
> Thanks,
> Ian.
>

Hi Ian,

I think the Release Team is the wrong authority for this enquiry.

As I understand it, you feel that weboob (in its current condition) is
in conflict with Debian's values (e.g. the CoC or the diversity
statement).  The reason why I suspect the release team is the wrong
authority is that other packages violating Debian's values (namely the
DFSG) are not shipped in Debian *at all* (i.e. it is not in "main"
regardless of suite).

However, the release team do not have the authority decide what is in
unstable/experimental, so we cannot make decide to remove weboob from
Debian main.


Secondly, even if we *could* make the decision for weboob (or the scope
of our powers are sufficient for you in this case), I think the project
is much better served having a separate authority on whether something
is in line with the CoC/Diversity statement.
  The delegation of the release team is currently (and rightfully)
limited to bugs, packages and suites (etc.).  In other words, we are not
authorized to make decisions on similar issues on non-package related
issues (or even package related issues in sid/experimental except as a
means to keep them *out* of testing).

Thanks,
~Niels

Note: Personally, I would very much prefer that upstream accepted
https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154 and removed the remaining
insults (if any), so we could put all of this behind us.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Ian Jackson-2
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> I think the Release Team is the wrong authority for this enquiry.
>
> As I understand it, you feel that weboob (in its current condition) is
> in conflict with Debian's values (e.g. the CoC or the diversity
> statement).  The reason why I suspect the release team is the wrong
> authority is that other packages violating Debian's values (namely the
> DFSG) are not shipped in Debian *at all* (i.e. it is not in "main"
> regardless of suite).

Thanks for your consideration.  I see where you are coming from.

In this case (and ones like it) I think it would do disproportionate
damage to remove the package from stable suites.  So treating this bug
as RC would get quite close to the right practical effect.  (As for
unstable, I think it should probably be removed unless it is useful to
keep it there while work is done on fixing this bug.)

> Secondly, even if we *could* make the decision for weboob (or the scope
> of our powers are sufficient for you in this case), I think the project
> is much better served having a separate authority on whether something
> is in line with the CoC/Diversity statement.

I see some force in this argument.  (Although I disagree with your
characterisation of this as a "non-package related issue".  The
problem is precisely with the content of the package.  But it is a
social rather than a technical problem.)

I think I need to look elsewhere.  I don't think the Technical
Committee is the right body.

Niels would the RT have a problem with a request (from an appropriate
body, or from the members via a 1:1 GR) to treat this as an RC bug for
release team purposes ?  I mean, would you feel that such a request
would be stepping on your toes, or would you welcome it for its
clarity ?

Your suggestion that there might be a "separate authority" does
suggest to me the possibility that you think this is, consitutionally,
something that "no-one else has responsibility for", ie it is in the
DPL's bailiwick and as-yet-undelegated.

Or maybe you think it's ftpmaster's responsibility.  Sadly I don't
think it would be a good idea to ask the ftpmaster team to be bear the
political weight of what is going to be a controversial decision
whatever way it goes.

Chris, what do you think ?  I think I have nearly run out of things to
try that aren't a GR.  I'm sure I can get sponsors for a GR, and help
drafting it.  I also hope that it would be sufficient for the GRa to
state some non-binding opinions, which I guess the maintainer and/or
core teams would probably choose to follow.  I would not want to try
to decide this on a supermajority.

> Note: Personally, I would very much prefer that upstream accepted
> https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154 and removed the remaining
> insults (if any), so we could put all of this behind us.

That would indeed be great.  But it does not seem to be likely.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Chris Lamb -2
Dear Ian,

> Chris, what do you think ?  I think I have nearly run out of things to
> try that aren't a GR.  I'm sure I can get sponsors for a GR, and help
> drafting it.

I sympathise with your viewpoint on the weboob contretemps, but if I may
adopt my attempt at an objective DPL or "Lady Liberty" persona for a
moment, do you not worry you may are jumping too quickly to the hammer
of a General Resolution?

Just as one example from your previous message, you appear to reject
working with upstream constructively on this, despite a solution
involving them being beneficial to the entire free software ecosystem
(not to mention avoiding rehashing a quite tedious and painfully
predictable debate within Debian itself).

You also do not appear to have looped AH in on this, despite them being
almost-certainly having some kind of viewpoint and de facto weight,
if not a de jure one.

As an important aside (and I'd like to underline that I don't really
subscribe to this view myself) it is regrettable that your framing the
idea of a GR at the moment can be interpreted as an ultimatum or — even
more tragically — as a threat.

Mentioning it just in passing when politely asking others to acquiesce
to your viewpoint will invariably raise emotional barriers in recipients'
subconscious and puts them in a "defensive mode" that simply gets in the
way of a productive conversation. Indeed, at worse, some readers may feel
like they are being emotionally blackmailed into agreeing too, which I
highly doubt is your intention.

Putting it another way, whilst drafting a GR is always technically an
option for a Developer to persue, I highly suspect one gets far more
traction, collaboration and "buy-in" with the rest of the Debian
community if one is far less explicit about it.


Best wishes,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Ian Jackson-2
Thanks for your mail and your attention.

Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references"):
> Just as one example from your previous message, you appear to reject
> working with upstream constructively on this, despite a solution
> involving them being beneficial to the entire free software ecosystem
> (not to mention avoiding rehashing a quite tedious and painfully
> predictable debate within Debian itself).

Well, others have definitely been trying that.  There is an issue in
the upstream tracker (mentioned in the footnote of Niels's message);
  https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154

This was reported in early August and has had no responses from the
upstream maintainers, despite several pings from other people.  I
think it is clear that upstream are aware of the complaint but are not
dealing with it (perhaps because it's no fun, or perhaps as deliberate
strategy).

I believe there have also been contacts between the Debian maintainer
and upstream, recently but well before that issue, but again those
don't seem to have produced an outcome I am happy with.

In this context, there is of course this blog posting.  But it's from
2013, and maybe views have changed.  Certainly I myself have done or
said things 5 years ago which I would take a very different line on
today.
  http://laurent.bachelier.name/2013/12/weboob-the-asshole-detector/

So it's true that we don't know for sure what upstream's current view
is on this situation, but that's not because no-one has tried to talk
to them about it.

There is also the issue that I think it would not be a particularly
good idea for me to try to make overtures to upstream.  As you note,
my communication style tends to put people's backs up.  Happily, other
people have been trying, and it seems better for me not to put my oar
in.

So ultimately I don't know what other efforts you think ought to be
made.  If you advise that it would be better for me to try a direct
contact with upstream then I am happy to do so.  In which case I would
appreciate a (private) review from someone of my proposed messages.

> You also do not appear to have looped AH in on this, despite them being
> almost-certainly having some kind of viewpoint and de facto weight,
> if not a de jure one.

Did you overlook this email ?

  From: Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>
  To: [hidden email]
  CC: [hidden email]
  Subject: web-oob "gratuituous sexual references" issue now with d-release
  Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
  Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 12:01:14 +0100

  Hi.  I thought I should let you know that this is now with the Release
  Team.  I have asked the RT to rule on the RCness of my bug report
    https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906119

  ITYSBT, in case you want to make some kind of representations to the
  Release Team.

  Regards,
  Ian.

I didn't receive any reply.  I also note that you yourself didn't
forward my message to AH as far as I can see.  I will do that with
this email, CCing you, right after I send it.

> As an important aside (and I'd like to underline that I don't really
> subscribe to this view myself) it is regrettable that your framing the
> idea of a GR at the moment can be interpreted as an ultimatum or - even
> more tragically - as a threat.

I can see why people might see things that way.

I would be interested to hear from you, how I should ask questions
like:

  "does the DPL think there are other useful avenues that we should
  try, before a GR"

or

  "how would the release team view a GR with an advisory text"

?

But perhaps your comment is directed to my earlier messagess.  I do
have a tendency to map out the future possible paths of a dispute
which is perhaps not very helpful.  But I think in this case surely
most people could see where this is probably heading.

Anyway, right now I feel I am running out of options.  I don't think
delaying resolving this issue is helping very much.

> Putting it another way, whilst drafting a GR is always technically an
> option for a Developer to persue, I highly suspect one gets far more
> traction, collaboration and "buy-in" with the rest of the Debian
> community if one is far less explicit about it.

Thanks for the feedback.  I look forward to your advice on the
key question I ask above, namely: what do you think I should do next ?

Thanks,
Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Gerardo Ballabio-2
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Please forgive me if I step in to give my two cents.

As others have already observed, if upstream doesn't want to
collaborate, there's always the option of forking. That would be a
more desirable outcome than removal from Debian -- as I understand it,
the program does perform a useful function.

May I suggest that you direct your effort to setting up a forked
version with all the offending names removed? I guess that if you did
that from the beginning, it might be already done by now and might
have costed less time, work and stress to you and to everybody else.
You know Debian is a do-ocracy: doing it yourself is always more
effective than trying to coerce someone else into doing something. I
would say that if you really care about solving this issue for good,
that's what you should be doing.

Cc:ing the maintainer: if Ian sets up the fork, would you be willing
to replace the original version with it?

Gerardo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Chris Lamb -2
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Hi Ian,

> If you advise that it would be better for me to try a direct contact
> with upstream then I am happy to do so.  In which case I would
> appreciate a (private) review from someone of my proposed messages.

Sure thing; if I could help with any of that please get in touch.

> I would be interested to hear from you, how I should ask questions
> like:
>
>   "does the DPL think there are other useful avenues that we should
>   try, before a GR"
>
> or
>
>   "how would the release team view a GR with an advisory text"

I totally understand and appreciate the rationale of outlining the
potential options in a roadmap — it is indeed an effective approach in
most areas in order to frame where one is in a process.

Howver I suspect and worry that this is a special-case is in that
simply mentioning the General Resolution hammer in such questions (when
it has not definitively, quote-regrettably-unquote, and 100% reached
that point yet) can easily be interpreted as unnecessarily truculent,
however strictly true it is.

Apologies if this possible "exception" angle was not clearer in my
previous mails to you.

> I didn't receive any reply.  I also note that you yourself didn't
> forward my message to AH as far as I can see.

I did not see this mail but I don't think I would have forwarded it
to AH myself, so thank-you for doing so. From their reply, it seems
like there is to be some activity there first to P()-upon, semaphore-
wise.


Best wishes,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Martina Ferrari
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Hi all,

I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team, as our input has
been requested on this issue.

Our understanding, after reading the mail threads and bug reports, is
that the package in its current shape is against the Debian CoC ("be
respectful") -- while it's not a "flagrant" violation,

As Gregor Herrmann eloquently[1] put it, it's "not ok to use the boobs
theme for a web scraper or other software unrelated to boobs [sic]
themselves, where its only function is to make a small group of users
giggle while objectifying, offending or boring the rest of the world."

We appreciate uploading a new version without the insults (and thank
Jonathan Dowland for his efforts[2][3] on this front). Please note that
the insults and homophobic language *is* a flagrant violation of
Debian's CoC and in our opinion, Debian should not ship new software
including them.

We believe the next release should not contain the package in question
in its current state; our recommendation would be to either work with
upstream on correcting these issues, forking and/or patching it, or just
removing the package. There is still enough time to find a solution that
respects our users and our community while keeping a useful piece of
software in the archive. We would also encourage all parties to be
respectful, and to observe the community needs for a healthy environment
where such puerile humour taken at the expense of other people is not
acceptable any more.

If this dispute cannot be resolved amicably and timely, we believe the
FTP-master team can -and should- unilaterally remove the package from
the archive. We think that invoking the CTTE or calling a GR would
unnecessarily cause more disruption and draw energy from the community.


Martín Ferrari, on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team.


[1]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2018/07/msg00428.html
[2]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/merge_requests/228
[3]: https://git.weboob.org/weboob/devel/issues/154

--
Martín Ferrari (Tincho)


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Ian Jackson-2
Martín Ferrari writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> I am writing on behalf of the Anti-Harassment team, as our input has
> been requested on this issue.

Thanks for your considered and helpful response.

>    our recommendation would be to either work with
> upstream on correcting these issues, forking and/or patching it, or just
> removing the package. There is still enough time to find a solution that
> respects our users and our community while keeping a useful piece of
> software in the archive.

That would be great.

Speaking personally I am definitely willing to talk to anyone about
this but ... experience suggests that, despite my best efforts, my
communication style does not lead to happiness in these kind of
situations.  I think it would be best if someone else would take the
lead in negotiations.

OTOH if it is necessary to diverge from upstream: I have a lot of
experience with build systems and version control systems and could
probably help with the technical work.  I would be tempted to write a
git-filter-branch script, because that would produce a
probably-useable git history and make it easier to handle future
upstream updates.

I am happy to do that technical work if we can agree, within Debian
(including, obviously, the Debian maintainer) on the basic shape.

I look forward to hearing from the Debian maintainer, who I think is
the first point of contact for the management of the package in
Debian.

Thanks,
Ian.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#906119: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Ian Jackson-2
Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> I look forward to hearing from the Debian maintainer, who I think is
> the first point of contact for the management of the package in
> Debian.

I am concerned about the lack of progress.  I would be grateful for
advice on what I should do next.

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Chris Lamb -2
Dear Ian,

> > I look forward to hearing from the Debian maintainer, who I think is
> > the first point of contact for the management of the package in
> > Debian.
>
> I am concerned about the lack of progress.  I would be grateful for
> advice on what I should do next.

I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to
correct me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this
issue and thus I have not been taking action on it myself as
leader@.

I therefore also eagerly their opinion and/or correction this
matter.


Best wishes,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Ian Jackson-2
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to
> correct me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this
> issue and thus I have not been taking action on it myself as
> leader@.
>
> I therefore also eagerly their opinion and/or correction this
> matter.

Please see the AH team's response here:

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907199#47

ISTM that the AH team have done a very helpful job, providing a clear
opinion about both: (i) the suitability for Debian of the package in
its current state; and (ii) the proper way to implement that,
sociopolitically.

Personally even though I think this package is unacceptable in its
current state, our tradition in Debian would normally be to leave the
package in old releases and remove it only from new ones.

So, should the next thing be an RM bug requesting the package be
removed from unstable ?

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Erik Granger
isn't there something more productive to do with y'alls time?

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 10:48 AM Ian Jackson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Chris Lamb writes ("Re: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?"):
> I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to
> correct me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this
> issue and thus I have not been taking action on it myself as
> leader@.
>
> I therefore also eagerly their opinion and/or correction this
> matter.

Please see the AH team's response here:

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907199#47

ISTM that the AH team have done a very helpful job, providing a clear
opinion about both: (i) the suitability for Debian of the package in
its current state; and (ii) the proper way to implement that,
sociopolitically.

Personally even though I think this package is unacceptable in its
current state, our tradition in Debian would normally be to leave the
package in old releases and remove it only from new ones.

So, should the next thing be an RM bug requesting the package be
removed from unstable ?

Ian.

--
Ian Jackson <[hidden email]>   These 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#906119: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Chris Lamb -2
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Dear Ian,

> Please see the AH team's response here

This is the response from late September. As I understand it, the
AH team had a very recent meeting and it's highly likely that this
issue was raised again then. I thus still await their update (or
correction) on this.

> So, should the next thing be an RM bug requesting the package be
> removed from unstable ?

Possibly. But shall we not, at least in the first instance, invite
the maintainer of the package in Debian to do so?

I hope the above does not come across as overly equivocating but I
cannot help but feel the DPL is being pushed into a corner here.


Regards,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Martina Ferrari
In reply to this post by Chris Lamb -2
Chris et al,

On 26/10/18 15:31, Chris Lamb wrote:

>> I am concerned about the lack of progress.  I would be grateful
>> for advice on what I should do next.
>
> I was led to believe — althought naturally feel very free to correct
> me — that the AH team were (quite correctly,) handling this issue and
> thus I have not been taking action on it myself as leader@.

We were asked for an opinion on this matter, which we expressed about a
month ago in the BTS.

We think we should not get involved in the minutiae of how this is
solved, but our original recommendation still remains (quoting from our
previous email):

> We believe the next release should not contain the package in
> question in its current state

[..]

> If this dispute cannot be resolved amicably and timely, we believe
> the FTP-master team can -and should- unilaterally remove the package
> from the archive.
For further clarification, this means that we believe there is time
until the freeze to solve this issue, and if it is not solved by then,
the package should be removed from testing and unstable.

--
Martín


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: Should the weboob package stay in Debian?

Chris Lamb -2
Dear Martín et al.,

> For further clarification, this means that we believe there is time
> until the freeze to solve this issue

Indeed and I remain optimistic that this can be achieved before we
reach for the RM "hammer". Romain, can you chime in here?


Regards,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Marc Dequènes (Duck)
In reply to this post by Ian Jackson-2
Quack,

Just to clarify things on my side.

I made my opinion clear as to the needless boobs reference I believe
harmless. So far I heard no wish to rename from upstream, which would be
the simplest solution.

As for insults, they were removed upstream, unstable was patched (not
all fixes were released yet), and we're waiting for the release team to
allow fixes of older versions.

As for renaming, in general I believe this is a total loss of time and
energy: either a package is fit to be in Debian or it is not (and in
this case rejected from NEW or later RM-ed). I do not believe hiding
things are making the world better, it is still the same upstream and in
other distributions. If we do that upstream has no incentive to change.
My opinion on the real harm of this specific package being as it is, I
do not intend to ask for RM myself.

I value the opinion of the anti-harassment team but I believe this is
outside their mission. At the moment we do not have any team in charge
of validating the non-technical aspects of the packages, and ftpmasters
do not seem eager to play this role, so the anti-harassment team is
probably the best suited for the job. Maybe this could be a topic for
our DPL to setup/extend a formal delegation.

\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Chris Lamb -2
Dear Marc,

> I value the opinion of the anti-harassment team but I believe this is
> outside their mission. At the moment we do not have any team in charge
> of validating the non-technical aspects of the packages.

I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why
you believe the AH team is not a credible voice or otherwise are
unsuitable / unempowered to make such decisions?

(Is this "just" a constitutional question?)


Best wishes,

--
      ,''`.
     : :'  :     Chris Lamb
     `. `'`      [hidden email] / chris-lamb.co.uk
       `-

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#907199: weboob, Gratuitous sexual references

Marc Dequènes (Duck)
Quack,

On 2018-11-16 18:43, Chris Lamb wrote:

> I would be very interested if you could briefly elaborate on why
> you believe the AH team is not a credible voice or otherwise are
> unsuitable / unempowered to make such decisions?
>
> (Is this "just" a constitutional question?)

Whoua, I cannot convey how bad it feels that every little thing you say
seem to be scrutinized for some dark meaning…

It _is_ a constitutional question because we've been arguing for quite
some times about which team should take a final decision in this matter
and I believe it would be better for the future to have a proper
delegation like we have for other kind of disagreements. That's what I
meant.

As for being credible, I think they deal with delicate problems, like
drawing a line on what kind of behavior is not acceptable at an event,
and that make them best prepared for the job. This is still a challenge
though because there is no single person to talk to and judging authors'
and contributors' intentions/possible message (as it is not "flagrant")
as one is IMHO a pitfall (removing insults came from this same
community). I won't bore you with more details. The fact that I disagree
on this specific matter does _not_ mean I disregard them.

I think I will refrain to talk publicly on this subject for some time or
until some real necessity, this is really getting me down. If you still
wish to discuss this _kindly_, then contact me privately.

\_o<

--
Marc Dequènes

12