• Re: ITA: fortunes-mod (was: SUMMARY [Was Re: Fortunes-off - do we need

    From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 23 23:40:01 2022
    "Andrew" == Andrew M A Cater <amacater@einval.com> writes:

    Andrew> On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:05:29PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
    >> [I'm using the pseudonymous respondent's message to reply to
    >> Mr. Cater as well. Mind the angle brackets for quotation
    >> context.]
    >>
    >> At 2022-11-23T14:14:38-0500, The Wanderer wrote:
    >> > On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
    >> > > Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have
    >> various > > developers who have written defending free speech:
    >> we've had others > > who have expressed various reservations with
    >> one aspect or other of > > the status quo.
    >> > >
    >> > > There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*.
    >>

    Andrew> No - there is a consensus that splitting things based on
    Andrew> cultural preference is hard - you and Sam both agree on that
    Andrew> point - various other people in the discussion have had
    Andrew> other viewpoints.

    I don't think I have agreed that splitting things based on cultural
    preference is hard. I don't really think I think of things in a way
    where I can imagine drawing conclusions about that.

    I think that:

    * There are hard issues involved

    * There is cultural preference involved to some degree.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sam Hartman@21:1/5 to G Branden Robinson on Wed Nov 23 23:40:01 2022
    "G" == G Branden Robinson <g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> writes:


    G> Neither you nor he, therefore, is well placed to present a
    G> (presumptively neutral) summary of the discussion. (Neither am
    G> I.)

    Branden, I'd like to push back on the idea that we want a summary from
    someone neutral.
    If we have that luxury--for example if we have a facilitator of
    consensus building who happens not to have a strong opinion related to
    the current consensus--that's great.

    However, summaries are critical to consensus-building discussions.
    We cannot have them without summaries.
    The summaries are where someone tries to capture where we are and see
    if it "sticks."

    I think we're now all able to see what happens when people think the
    summary didn't capture the discussion--it didn't stick.

    This will advance the discussion far more than if each of us walked away
    from the discussion making our own assumptions about where we reached
    without sharing those assumptions. As an example of why that's bad, the decision to originally enable usrmerge in debootstrap cited a
    debian-devel consensus that was never summarized. Putting it mildly,
    some people viewed the existence of that consensus differently than the
    people proposing the debootstrap change. If that consensus had been summarized--even by someone who was not neutral--we would have
    discovered a disconnect much sooner. We might have been able to avoid significant bad blood.

    So, I absolutely think Andrew was in a position to summarize, and if he
    didn't I hope you or I or someone else would have chosen to do so.
    I'm very glad he did.

    --=-=-Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iHUEARYIAB0WIQSj2jRwbAdKzGY/4uAsbEw8qDeGdAUCY36f1QAKCRAsbEw8qDeG dKdiAP0V6vbpyJp1C2eJX8s53v0gkjft9xsfirHMAlnaN2N+ZgEAiP1xxbtjYNI+ HfYnpGrFIu0Jw9xgZsDJTbZytxBwrQU=5TMu
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andrew M.A. Cater@21:1/5 to G. Branden Robinson on Wed Nov 23 23:20:01 2022
    On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 03:05:29PM -0600, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
    [I'm using the pseudonymous respondent's message to reply to Mr. Cater
    as well. Mind the angle brackets for quotation context.]

    At 2022-11-23T14:14:38-0500, The Wanderer wrote:
    On 2022-11-23 at 13:06, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
    Thank you for your considered opinions thus far. We have various developers who have written defending free speech: we've had others
    who have expressed various reservations with one aspect or other of
    the status quo.

    There's been a grudging consensus that this is *hard*.


    No - there is a consensus that splitting things based on cultural preference
    is hard - you and Sam both agree on that point - various other people in
    the discussion have had other viewpoints. Notably, I'm not actually
    suggesting that it's straightforward for all the reasons put forward by everyone in the discussion.

    I gather that you don't join in that consensus, because your
    prescriptions are quick and easy. Mr. Dowland's assessment of everyone
    who wants his action reversed as being desirous of association with
    racism, sexism, and pro-Nazi sentiment[1] is facile, hasty, and
    fallacious.


    The reason I brought this to debian-project is absolutely that CT had a query from someone living in Germany as to the desirability of Nazi quotations in fortunes-off and the suggestion from that person that this *might* be illegal to host in Germany, Austria [Czech Republic and France at least also have similar laws I believe]. As I wrote, I wasn't sure that Nazi quotes were still there - they are - and you were helpful in identifying where several of them are.

    Notably, I haven't assessed anybody's motives in this.

    Neither you nor he, therefore, is well placed to present a
    (presumptively neutral) summary of the discussion. (Neither am I.)


    I don't have a categorical view one way or another on this hence bringing it
    to this list. It did seem to me that some of the quotations wouldn't fit well with the Code of Conduct. If you take Sam's view, that's OK, because this is
    a game and we shouldn't apply the spirit of the Code of Conduct to software

    Some of the people replying have one view, some another.

    Notably, Sam Hartman and Branden Robinson have pointed up flaws with
    the existing categorisations and with a blanket removal based on preference. It's also noticeable that this largely comes down to consideration of fortunes in English - almost nothing has been said
    about other fortunes files or other languages, though Sam talked
    about cultural perceptions.

    A serious suggestion: it is not necessary for Debian to package
    fortune files at all.

    I'm going to have to add "a serious suggestion" to "honestly" and "trust
    me" as linguistic tags that flag a declaration as deceptive.


    It should be obvious from Debian list archives that I try to think through
    what I write and consider who is reading it. It's not a frivolous, spur of
    the moment sentence: it's not axiomatic that we should still package
    fortunes and translate them. Nor is it necessary for us to police what others would choose to read or select for themselves.

    It is a serious suggestion because it's thought through: you may note
    from what I write that I'm endeavouring to be even-handed and transparent.
    I also try to write clear prose and not weasel words.

    Just because it was done that way in 1995 doesn't mean we have to do this now.

    Have you worked on embedded systems, ever? It's not _necessary_ for
    Debian to package much of anything. We could arguably serve just as
    well as "universal OS" by providing only a nucleus, say, a high-quality microkernel.[2] Minimalism has never been an objective of the package archive. This fact has been so transparently obvious for so long that
    it is difficult for me to maintain the presumption that you are arguing
    in good faith.


    I'm not arguing in *bad* faith; I'm thinking that we don't have to package everything that we always have just because we've always done it that way

    I find this suggestion demotivating and discouraging.

    Sorry to hear that. My own reaction is better termed "pissed off".

    I believe that this statement is inaccurate. There are parts of the collection which are Debian-specific (the earliest of which, per the changelog, were added in 1999), and others which have been added far
    more recently than 1995 (there have been what seem like substantive additions at least as recently as 2006).

    Yes, some of them were collected by Joseph Carter ("knghtbrd"), a former Debian developer, ca. 2000 and for some time afterward.

    The way the Debian packaging splits the collection into various files, which I understand is not necessarily done upstream, can also be
    valuable.

    I agree with this. If I were maintainer I think I'd thus segregate the
    sort of mathy stuff I'd like to see, in acknowledgement that some people
    just aren't edified or provoked to thought by such things. Similarly,
    some people just aren't up to being randomly confronted by exemplars of
    human folly, which characterizes the 1.5% or so of the fortunes-off
    package at issue, even if they _type_ "fortune" at a shell prompt.


    With the possible exception of the knightbrd files, the files are
    segregated fairly well following the Github repository which itself looks
    to have been derived from ibiblio.org

    The upstream Github repository is potentially only one of many
    disparate sites on the 'Net and the English language collection
    doesn't reflect the languages of Debian users worldwide.

    Is anyone being prevented from submitting fortune collections localized
    to other languages? Several are already present.[3] Would you be able
    to recognize a Hitler quote rendered in Cyrillic? Might such a quote
    not carry context for a person with family who participated in the Great Patriotic War that you don't share? Perhaps some derogatory quip about
    the inferiority of the Slavs, when Russians culturally well remember
    hoisting the hammer and sickle over the Reichstag on 2 May 1945 (as my countryfolk do a similar event at Iwo Jima).


    I might well be able to recognise a Hitler quote in Cyrillic, yes - that's me. I'm not guessing as to the context other people may have: I do note that
    there are relatively few languages represented in the translations of fortune files in Debian. I could quite easily be missing out on something interesting in French, Spanish or Italian, for example - I don't have context for non-European languages apart from Welsh.

    Your response, to exclude it all and _foreclose as a matter of policy_
    the curation and maintenance of such resources amounts to declaring the Debian Project impotent to address the challenges here.


    It's a relatively straightforward approach that simplifies things. It
    would also propagate to Ubuntu and other Debian-derived distributions if
    they took the change forward.

    It's my turn to cite §2.1.1 of the Debian Constitution as Steve Langasek
    did to me. You are not _required_ to deal with fortune cookies. You
    don't have to install them or use them. There are many packages that
    any given user will never employ, or even be aware of.

    The Project does not require your paternalistic supervision.


    I'm not supervising the Project - we're all equals here, no?

    Remolding the archive to more closely resemble your personal corpus of installed packages is a curious way to serve the principles of plurality
    and diversity.


    Everyone has their own Debian ...

    If Debian doesn't distribute fortune files but instead provides the
    means for users to make/download their own choice, nothing is lost. Debian is not responsible for maintaining any file content, whether questionable or unobjectionable depending on viewpoint, and we lose
    the burden of translation, maintenance and policing of content.

    If you don't want these responsibilities, don't adopt them. Same goes
    for Mr. Dowland.


    I'm not adopting them: I'm suggesting that the project disclaim the
    principle of selection, translation and maintenance in favour of letting
    a user decide on what they want in 2022.

    I am reasonably certain that this would just lead to far fewer people bothering to make use of the fortunes database(s) at all, thereby
    creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about how irrelevant this is in
    the modern world.

    The people who try to ban books in the United States employ a similar multi-level strategy. If censorship of the local public library's
    collection is unsuccessful, they propose withdrawal of funds for the
    library, removing a much greater volume of common resources from public facility.[4] No doubt to the satisfaction of the oligopolistic
    publishing industry, which views public libraries as frustrating its extraction of monopoly rents.[5]

    From my perspective, this whole discussion looks like someone whom
    I've respected coming in and proposing to take away one of the small
    things I somewhat like having around, and that taking-away happening
    almost immediately despite the existence of pushback over it, and then
    that person reacting to the pushback by proposing to take away a
    *bigger* thing that I even *more* like having around. I imagine it's
    not hard to see how that could be upsetting or demotivating.

    I have to disagree with Sam a bit here, while "be bold" is _often_ good advice, especially in volunteer communities, it is not always. Apart
    from the present contretemps, I can think of another (again from the
    United States).[6]

    Apparently the package's maintainer has not done an upload since
    2013.[7] Even groff has managed to release twice since then![8]


    That's part of the point - there have been a bunch of NMUs and various hands involved. The current maintainer is a Debian Maintainer who would probably welcome help.

    I therefore solicit a volunteer who is fully up-to-date with packaging processes to privately advise me so that I can avoid making tedious
    mistakes. E.g., I don't know if filing bugs against "wnpp" is still necessary or recommended for adopting a package with nine years of inattention. Please email me privately if you feel yourself qualified
    and are supportive of my intended action. You don't need to be
    enthusiastic about the package's _content_; I am not myself--there is a
    lot of crap in there IMO, even apart from the stuff at issue here.


    Great - thank you for stepping forward to help in getting the package into shape.

    In the short run, my plan would be to ensure that the package is policy-compliant (and therefore can't be sniped again before release on
    a technicality by some "deeply principled" person), evaluate the handful
    of categories that are suggestive of group prejudice, and decide on some
    kind of updated disclaimer (if necessary) so that the package can warn
    about itself. In the years since fortunes-mod was first packaged for
    Debian, the abbreviation "NSFW" has become commonly known for tagging of materials like this. That may be more communicative than an "-off"
    suffix in the 2020s. But if a rename will frustrate the package's
    progress through the incoming queue, I won't do it before the bookworm release. The NSFW annotation can easily go in the package description.


    In the long run, I expect to curate as suits me personally; I'll
    document my actions (of course) and if someone wants to package the
    items I throw away, that's up to them. One can expect the addition of
    items reflecting my personal interests, like math, retrocomputing, music theory, and Catalan revolutionaries.


    There are a bunch of low priority bugs where folk have also suggested
    either individual quotes or categories. One is for Terry Pratchett, for example.

    I don't have the desire or--especially--the time to undertake major
    changes in the package before the bookworm release. I have something
    else I'm working that brings me joy and I'd like to get that solid for
    GNU release and thence into Debian. Approximately 400 upstream bugs fixed--it does an old XFree86 package maintainer's heart good.[9][10]

    Anyone who helps has my thanks in advance.

    Regards,
    Branden

    [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2022/11/msg00062.html

    [2] And do I ever have one in mind I'd like to tell people about! It
    would please me much more than fighting over elementary principles
    of open society.

    [3] https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=fortunes

    [4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/
    [5] https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/89038-over-the-past-25-years-the-big-publishers-got-bigger-and-fewer.html

    [6] As usual, it was our conservo-glibertarian friends who were behind
    this (q.v. "Free State Project").

    "...At issue was the local school budget, which funds a school for
    children through fourth grade in town and covers tuition for older
    students to attend private and public schools in neighboring towns.
    At a poorly attended annual meeting in March, voters approved a
    measure to cut the school budget by more than half, from $1.7
    million to $800,000.

    The cut would have transformed the education system in Croydon,
    replacing the public school system with one run by cheaper, private
    companies that offer individualized programs, largely online.
    Croydon would have become the first community in New Hampshire where
    two companies, Prenda and Kaipod, would have become the default
    education providers.

    Both companies have been championed by New Hampshire Education
    Commissioner Frank Edelblut, who helped them secure contracts with
    the state of New Hampshire. ..."

    https://www.nhpr.org/nh-news/2022-05-08/croydon-voters-overturn-school-budget-cut

    [7] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fortune-mod
    [8] https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/groff/
    [9] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/ANNOUNCE
    [10] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/NEWS

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