Re: Renaming the Debian Project
Daniel Pocock:
>
>
> On 06/01/16 05:19, Chris Knadle wrote:
>> Daniel Pocock:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31/12/15 04:22, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 02:03:40PM -0800, benjamin barber wrote:
>>>>> It's unfortunate that Debian is named after Debra and Ian,
>>>>> because having the project named after a white supremacist, who
>>>>> used his ex-wifes name as an trophy.
>>>>
>>>> I agree in whole with the responses of my fellow developers Dimitri
>>>> and Russ. I also believe, because the Internet never forgets, that
>>>> this libelous accusation needs to be addressed directly.
>>>>
>>>> In the time leading up to Ian's death, he posted on his now-deleted
>>>> twitter account about an altercation with police. He described
>>>> being the victim of police brutality, and expressed the desire that
>>>> his story be widely known - in the hopes that, where stories of
>>>> police brutality (up to and including murder) of racial minorities
>>>> in the United States have failed to lead to the systemic reforms
>>>> that are needed, perhaps a story of a white, affluent, educated,
>>>> middle-aged man being a victim of the same systems might tip the
>>>> scale.
>>>>
>>>> In the course of expressing these views on twitter, Ian used a
>>>> racial epithet.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In fact, it has not been verified that those Tweets were from Ian
>>> himself. It can only be said that there were Tweets and they appear
>>> to originate from Ian's Twitter ID.
>>>
>>> Had somebody hacked his account?
>>
>> I believe the Tweets that have been posted are really from Ian. The basis
>> of my belief is a story at The Register which quotes the facts as stated by
>> the San Francisco Police Department in the last few paragraphs:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/30/ian_murdock_debian_founder/
>
> There is a general consensus not to keep picking through the details on
> the mailing list. I only posted those questions about the matter to
> emphasize the lack of information - none of the material anybody has
> provided can answer those questions conclusively with hard evidence so
> there is nowhere for this thread to go. Please don't feel I am
> encouraging people to seek out answers, I only posted the questions to
> highlight the lack of facts in the original troll mail, we just have to
> sit back and wait and see if they are answered from a credible source.
>
> The PR statements are not a credible source, only an official report
> from an inquiry has any weight. PR statements are not made under oath
> like evidence in court or an affidavit.
No, it's not PR statements. Police departments have an officer assigned to
state the facts known when the media calls them... which they do regularly
to find out about new events that have happened. I don't see why you'd need
the police department or the media author to be under oath to accept what
they state, especially being that in this case what's stated correlates with
what Ian seems to have said himself.
Being that there's not likely to be a court case, nobody is going to be
under oath and so if we went by the "rules" you've laid out above, there
would never be anything what you call "credible" to discuss, and therefore
all this message does is to try to hush others politically, and I object to
that.
Other than these objections I don't have anything further to say about this
right now, though.
-- Chris
--
Chris Knadle
Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Reply to: