Web lists-archives.com

Re: Proposed change of offensive packages to -offensive




On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 08:49 +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 01:38:43AM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > no, please, no.
> > 
> > policy should document technical terms.
> > 
> > whatever else we might come up to deal with the "real world" (that is
> > more complicated than that, eg think tibet, taiwan and china, or $foo)
> > should not be included in -policy.
> 
> This is about standardising the label we use for marking offensive 
> content, not about defining what is or isn't offensive. I'd argue that
> "-offensive" suffix proposal was a technical term.
> 

Hi,

My two pence worth...

In my honest opinion, rating certain content types within a package should be
done along the lines of PEGI[1]. A self regulatory rating done as part of a
social policy and administered by the particular packages maintainer. All
subsequent questioning of rating would be done via bug reports against the
particular package.

Not an exhaustive list...

* Rating set within debian folder - maybe rating file.
* Seen on packages.d.o, PTS and query by apt etc. for package.
* Should not be auto installed as a recommends etc.

[1] http://www.pegi.info

Regards

Phil

-- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

Web: https://kathenas.org

GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

Twitter: kathenasorg

Instagram: kathenasorg

GPG: 1B97 6556 913F 73F3 9C9B 25C4 2961 D9B6 2017 A57A

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part