Hello,

I think there should be an entirely new and different policy to what
to accept and not accept in debian. Code is mostly not written in
debian and most projects adopt different code of conducts, so there
will inevitably be a lot of mismatches if we just apply the code of
conduct to all the code we have.

Also, data doesn't have a conduct, so there's that…

I think that before starting to draft voting options, it would be
better to have an informal poll to see where people stand on various
issues.

For example:

Are religious texts exempt? I think they should not be because next
thing that will happen is that a few people will come up and say mein
kampf is a religious text for them, but it seems clear that some
people believe religious texts are exempt. In that case we should also
define what a religion is and isn't.

Are sufficiently old things allowed? Every single greek person who
wrote anything, most likely would be in jail nowadays, but their
conduct was in most cases accepted in their own culture. Does this
only apply to sufficiently old things or also modern?

In general I think that things everybody agrees on who are not
uncomfortable to anyone are not worth saying, so if that's the goal we
should be purging anything that isn't software, and possibly most
games.

There's probably much more to this but I had planned to think about it
for longer before starting a thread, but you were quicker :)

Best
--
Salvo Tomaselli

I difensori della morale tradizionale sono raramente persone di cuore. Si è tentati di pensare che essi si servano della morale come di legittimo sfogo
al loro desiderio di fare del male agli altri.
-- Bertrand Russell, Perché non sono cristiano. 1957

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Salvo,

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 02:27:27PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:

Hello,

I think there should be an entirely new and different policy to what
to accept and not accept in debian.

Indeed, that's the fourth option in the list that I suggested.

Code is mostly not written in debian and most projects adopt different
code of conducts, so there will inevitably be a lot of mismatches if
we just apply the code of conduct to all the code we have.

Hence my suggestion that the rules should not apply to upstream comments
or variable names etc.

We can certainly patch software which performs actions that would be
counter to any standard we set for the software we distribute. We
already do set various requirements, such as for example the location of configuration files, that may require patching upstream software. This
would just be one more case where we do that.

Also, data doesn't have a conduct, so there's that…

No, but the people who *write* the data do.

I think that before starting to draft voting options, it would be
better to have an informal poll to see where people stand on various
issues.

Informal polls are part of our GR drafting process. You need a number of seconds before a ballot option can make it on the ballot; that in itself
is an informal form of a poll. So I don't see the need, really.

I understand you not wanting to be rushed into putting something on the
ballot when you're not ready for it yet. For that reason, I *explicitly*
said I'd hold off on proposing a GR if the discussion is still in full
swing. I'm also happy to hold off if someone informs me that they are
drafting another option but they're not ready for it to be added yet.

But none of that means we can't say that we want a GR on the subject?

For example:

Are religious texts exempt?

I think they should be, but not because they are "religious". Instead,
they should be excempt because (a) there is a reasonable use for them in
the archive, (b) they have been read by people for a very very *very*
long time, in unmodified form, and (c) the authorship is clear[1] and not
in any way or form associated with Debian.

Yes, that definition *also* applies to Mein Kampf. Is that a problem?
Maybe. I haven't yet decided.

[1] well, okay, perhaps the authorship is not clear, as in, we don't
really always know who wrote each part of the bible, but it's
"clear" as in, people won't complain to Debian about the authorship
of the bible.

I think they should not be because next
thing that will happen is that a few people will come up and say mein
kampf is a religious text for them, but it seems clear that some
people believe religious texts are exempt. In that case we should also
define what a religion is and isn't.

So by not looking at this from the side of "religion" vs "not religion",
we neatly sidestep this whole tangled mess. I didn't mention the word "religion" in my previous mail. This was not an accident.

Are sufficiently old things allowed? Every single greek person who
wrote anything, most likely would be in jail nowadays, but their
conduct was in most cases accepted in their own culture. Does this
only apply to sufficiently old things or also modern?

I would say that sufficiently old things are allowed, yes.

I think an untranslated version of the Illiad should be allowed,
unmodified, even though it basically treats women as property.

I think the Illiad, translated by a university professor specializing in ancient Greek and peer reviewed by a number of his colleagues should be allowed, unmodified.

I think the Illiad, translated long enough ago that people could comment
on it and complain if there are bad parts in the translation should be
allowed, unmodified.

I think the Illiad, translated by someone who did it on a whim one
sunday evening and who decides to publish it through Debian for the
first time should probably be eyed with suspicion, at least.

These are obviously just examples. In general, I don't think the Illiad
should be distributed through Debian because the Illiad is a text and
not a piece of software. But let's ignore that, for the sake of
argument.

In general I think that things everybody agrees on who are not
uncomfortable to anyone are not worth saying, so if that's the goal we
should be purging anything that isn't software, and possibly most
games.

There's probably much more to this but I had planned to think about it
for longer before starting a thread, but you were quicker :)

Please do think about it, and make suggestions! If I agree with them,
I'll incorporate them in my text. If not, you can always make your own
option available.

--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

e
On 2025-07-21 13:02:32, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

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.

This is an excellent proposal, thank you for the email.

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.

This sounds good (with the later updates you mention in a follow-up
email), but I think this following paragraph hides a problem. Or, at
least, a problem for me. Inline below:

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

Here you say that we (the Debian project) does not want to be a morality police, in other words we would be somewhat neutral, but then
immediately follow with:

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.

I.e. we just can't afford to be the morality police, but we agree with
it and wish someone would do it.

Now, I don't think (fortunes-*-off excepted) that so far this has been a significant problem in Debian, but this raises the question: do we
actually want to push for it (enforcing the current morality standards,
which can change over time), just in a limited basis, or do we want to
be neutral, and ship software as-is?

My point is here that setting a CoC for package data is just a proxy for
what we actually want, which I'm not sure is clear (to me; it might
already be to other people). If it is, then deriving the CoC for
packages from it should be rather straightforward.

I have a preference for being neutral, because anything than non-neutral
has the risk of causing downstream problems - which morality standard?
what do we do if the standards differ between countries? who judges it?
what do we do when the standards change? etc., but at the same time I
ack that maybe being neutral is a wishful dream, and that the situation
might actually be simpler than I think.

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 personally am split between option 3, even with the later updates in the thread, and option 4. But ack that 4 is a lot of work.

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.

Thank you, I really appreciate this.

regards,
iustin

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-07-21 Wouter Verhelst <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]

- 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.

[...]

Hello,

thank you for bringing this up.

Looking at the CoC again imho it just does not apply to this
purpose. The CoC is all about interaction between people while this is
more like a one-way-street. With a quite a bit fantasy I might be able
to adjust about 40% of the CoC for this purpose. How can my editor's
error message be "collaborative" or "open"? Having a ruleset with 60%
chaff is asking for trouble/overwide application. I would rather have
something much narrower which could not be misused to e.g. prevent
shipping doom.

cu Andreas
--
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Iustin,

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:

On 2025-07-21 13:02:32, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

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.

This is an excellent proposal, thank you for the email.

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.

This sounds good (with the later updates you mention in a follow-up
email), but I think this following paragraph hides a problem. Or, at
least, a problem for me. Inline below:

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

Here you say that we (the Debian project) does not want to be a morality police, in other words we would be somewhat neutral, but then
immediately follow with:

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.

I.e. we just can't afford to be the morality police, but we agree with
it and wish someone would do it.

More like, we think it's a good idea if someone did it, but it's not the
main focus of our project and we should focus on the things that we can
change (i.e., what gets into Debian), rather than trying to impose our
will upon the larger (Free Software) world.

Now, I don't think (fortunes-*-off excepted) that so far this has been a significant problem in Debian,

I can think of a few more examples that caused controversies in in the
past:
- A system load monitor, about 20 years ago, that used a cartoon of a
lady who was progressively undressed as the computer got warmer.
- A toolkit called "weboob" (for "WEB Outside Of Browser") that had
devolved into a bunch of juvenile boob jokes
- The sudo "insults" feature which used to be enabled by default but was
disabled after a bug report with complaints

So, yes, fortunes-*-off is the current problem, but not the first one,
and probably also not the last one, and it makes sense to clarify what
we think is or isn't allowed.

but this raises the question: do we actually want to push for it
(enforcing the current morality standards, which can change over
time), just in a limited basis, or do we want to be neutral, and ship software as-is?

My point is here that setting a CoC for package data is just a proxy for
what we actually want, which I'm not sure is clear (to me; it might
already be to other people). If it is, then deriving the CoC for
packages from it should be rather straightforward.

Honestly, what *I* want is an answer, that we all can agree with, to the question of whether the code of conduct applies to what we package, and
if so whether it fully applies or only partially.

Do I think we absolutely definitely need to have one? Not really.

Do I think it's a good idea to have one? Yes, definitely.

Do I think the answer "the code of conduct does not apply to packages in
Debian and anything is allowed there" is appropriate? Well, that's
complicated, as then that opens the door to blatant coc violations in
changelog entries. Someone writing a changelog entry with "**** the XYZ
team for making my life a living hell with this stupid requirement" in
it is potentially violating the code of conduct.

So having a policy is probably better than not having a policy. And if
we're already having a policy, then I think it makes sense to also look
at what kind of messages are being produced by our software to our
users. But that is not the main reason why I think we need this policy.

The questions that pop up here are things like, is it appropriate to
ship sudo with the "insults" option enabled by default? My answer to
that one would be, probably not. Or, is it appropriate to have Debian developers spend a truckload of time on patching out anything that looks remotely like it might be an insult? Well, also probably not.

So I think that the messages produced by the software that we ship
should be respectful towards our users and the larger world, and not do
things that could be considered problematic were it to be done by a
human being in a situation where the code of conduct were to apply. And
if that is not the case, then we should probably patch that kind of
thing out.

I *also* think that it's not a problem if software in Debian does such
things optionally, if explicitly enabled. But perhaps not everyone
agrees with that, and that's fine.

Since we're dealing with free software, patching it for our uses in the
most egragious cases is fine and possible and legal. But to make
upstream abide by these things, that's a lot more work, and honestly not
what we're trying to do. So if upstream constantly adds four letter
words to their git commits or their code comments, well, meh, it's not
going to keep me awake at night...

--
w@uter.{be,co.za}
wouter@{grep.be,fosdem.org,debian.org}

I will have a Tin-Actinium-Potassium mixture, thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 21/07/25 at 19:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

I can think of a few more examples that caused controversies in in the
past:
- A system load monitor, about 20 years ago, that used a cartoon of a
lady who was progressively undressed as the computer got warmer.

It was named 'hot-babe'.

Those themes for hot-babe could serve as test data points for a policy
on the content of packages: http://caca.zoy.org/wiki/hot-babe

- A toolkit called "weboob" (for "WEB Outside Of Browser") that had
devolved into a bunch of juvenile boob jokes

#906119, #907199

I *also* think that it's not a problem if software in Debian does such
things optionally, if explicitly enabled. But perhaps not everyone
agrees with that, and that's fine.

The line is difficult to draw: fortunes-*-off, hot-babe or weboob
are/were optional in Debian (as in no user is forced to install them,
and they probably don't/didn't have reverse-depends). So it would be OK
to keep them in Debian?

Maybe a difference should be made between packages whose main purpose is
to expose users to offensive content (fortunes-*-off, hot-babe), and
packages which do something else but force users to be exposed to
offensive content (sudo, weboob). But then I don't know what to do with
that difference.

Lucas

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,

Hence my suggestion that the rules should not apply to upstream comments
or variable names etc.

I think every single combination of syllables means something bad in
some language.

How do we deal with this? Personally I'd deal by not picking the fight.

The word for "shirt" in swedish is the same as the insulting word for "prostitute" in italian. (I know several examples, I entertain my
swedish friends with the topic).

No, but the people who *write* the data do.

Yes but they are normally not members of debian and are well out of
the community team, so you can only decide on the data itself, not the
person.

Informal polls are part of our GR drafting process. You need a number of seconds before a ballot option can make it on the ballot; that in itself
is an informal form of a poll. So I don't see the need, really.

This is not a one dimensional thing unfortunately. There's a number of variables one might feel differently about.

I understand you not wanting to be rushed into putting something on the ballot when you're not ready for it yet. For that reason, I *explicitly*
said I'd hold off on proposing a GR if the discussion is still in full
swing. I'm also happy to hold off if someone informs me that they are drafting another option but they're not ready for it to be added yet.

I'm not drafting anything. I'm on vacation. I had planned to do that
in a few months.

Debian has a number of games that involve violent death in one form or
another. Since we are on a quest to remove any such content, are we
planning to get rid of most of the games?

Is clicking on representations of living beings causing their death
less violent than a violent text? For me it is more violent as there
is an active action.

Or are we going the USA movie classification where nudity/sex are
completely forbidden while violence is completely ok (as long as no or
very little blood is shown, of course).

I think we should really consider what it means to approve a very
restrictive guideline on what debian can contain.

Best
--
Salvo Tomaselli

I difensori della morale tradizionale sono raramente persone di cuore. Si è tentati di pensare che essi si servano della morale come di legittimo sfogo
al loro desiderio di fare del male agli altri.
-- Bertrand Russell, Perché non sono cristiano. 1957

http://ltworf.github.io/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

* Wouter Verhelst: " CoC policy for package contents (was: Re: Can the
community team remove packages or kick me out for not removing packages?)"
(Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:02:32 +0200):

Hi Wouter,

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.

I appreciate a lot your proposal. Would it make sense to delay a little bit further, because in a few weeks from now quite some interested people at least in EU will be on vacation?

--

Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Wouter,

On Mon, 21 Jul 2025, Wouter Verhelst wrote:

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.

I think the CoC is relevant for communication between people within
the Debian Community. Not for packages, or the content of packages.
it explains how we should behave. not what we expect from packages or
other people who are mostly not involved in debian.

we could decide which package-content someone might find offensive -
but is this for everybody? for all debian-developers the same? is it -
far more important - the same for our users?

if we decide to adapt the code of conduct for packages too, we will
open the door for any kind of repression of packages because "someone
might feel offended", as we just saw.

we will have these discussions as long as someone feels offended.
fortunes-off is now removed without any official voting about the
package, fortunes-*-off is in danger of receiving the same fate. not
because someone has been done, but someone thinks it could be
offensive, without checking the content. I do not think we want to
have a distribution where every package maintainer has to fear that
his package will be removed because someone finds something offensive
in his package.

I would prefer to have a repository where all controversial packages -
like fortunes-*-off, the bible, games which containt violence can be
put it and there is no dependency on these packages. Therefore,
everybody can decide wether he wants to have these packages or not.

best regards, Hanno Wagner
--
| Hanno Wagner | Member of the HTML Writers Guild | Rince@IRC |
| Eine gewerbliche Nutzung meiner Email-Adressen ist nicht gestattet! |
| 74 a3 53 cc 0b 19 - we did it! | Generation @ |
#"Eben, aber sei nicht traurig, wir pollen beide per UUCP und Du hast ein
# Handicap, Du bist aussernetzlich gebunden."
# -- Lutz D. troestet mich: Er hat das Zitat frueher in seiner.sig gehabt.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hello,

I have written a code of conduct (can't be linked because codeberg is for some reason marked as spam) which requires an actual offended person to exist when a
violation is reported. I think it would be a great thing to have in Debian, to avoid zealous reporting of things without knowing if they actually offend anyone.

I think "it offends me" is an ok reason, while "it doesn't offend me but might offend someone" could be valid or could be not valid, since it's an attempt at mind reading.

Also "it offends some bigot" is in my opinion a terrible reason, but defining boundaries is challenging.

we will have these discussions as long as someone feels offended. fortunes-off is now removed without any official voting about the
package, fortunes-*-off is in danger of receiving the same fate. not
because someone has been done, but someone thinks it could be
offensive, without checking the content. I do not think we want to
have a distribution where every package maintainer has to fear that
his package will be removed because someone finds something offensive
in his package.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1109650

I don't really have the will to waste my time with the debian project at the moment.

I've ceased any activity on d-mentors, quit a few IRC channels and I plan to orphan and remove myself from uploader from some other things, whenever I'll have some time to do that.

And of course I plan to learn from my past mistakes and never go and give a talk like [1], nor attend a debian event unless I'm required to do it as part of my job.

Best

1. https://web.dmi.unict.it/it/avvisi-docente/seminario-su-software-libero

--
Salvo Tomaselli

I difensori della morale tradizionale sono raramente persone di cuore. Si è tentati di pensare che essi si servano della morale come di legittimo sfogo
al loro desiderio di fare del male agli altri.
-- Bertrand Russell, Perché non sono cristiano. 1957

https://ltworf.github.io/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)