Re: Censorship in Debian
I agree with Russ that your framing of this is absolutely abhorrent.
Your continued justification of it is digging a bigger hole. I beg you,
please take a step back and reconsider your approach here before
continuing along these lines.
I actually have concerns about Norbert's blog being removed from Planet
and the level of transparency of the Anti-Harrassment team (although
Martin's recent mail to d-d-a addressed most of my concerns on the
latter front). I think it's perfectly fine to question their actions
and I intended to write a private email to their contact address in the
first instance; raising it on -project is another valid approach. But
drawing comparisons between your fellow project members and literal
murderers is absolutely not acceptable.
I'm actually really annoyed because now I don't feel we can have a
reasonable discussion about Norbert's blog at all without the taint
of this thread hanging over it.
With friends like these…
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:18:51PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
If people want to clarify the way Planet can be used, they can create a
policy and maybe put it to a vote. Retrospectively sanctioning people
without strong grounds based on policy is not right though.
I don't think the policy for Planet is the issue here. It's well
defined and has been operating for a very long time now.
People may expect a newsletter or another official publication to be
curated to some degree but I always had the impression that both Planet
and packaging are at the discretion of the individual developers.
I feel embarrassed for your AM. We have always been bound by the terms
of the Social Contract in all that we do for the project. Planet is no
different.
Personally, I welcome the diversity of views there and if it is going to
be curated now, I would volunteer to host an uncensored alternative to
Planet for those with similar feelings.
I encourage you to host a Planet of your own with whatever policy you
like. Really: please go and do that. But not in the name of the project.
and I reply with the strongest possible evidence, personal experience
and scientific research.
This (and what you write that follows) seems like a whip-lash response
if I'm being charitable, and like a deliberate attempt to confound the
discussion if I briefly suspend "assume good faith". You should take
your situation ot the anti harrassment team.
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.
Reply to: