Re: Bug#1136336: tech-ctte: Request for intervention on Bug #1135385 (gnome-control-center donation popup)

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Some general advice on this would be nice, although I think it is
challenging to argue this is a clear violation of the DSC.  Hard retoric
on a topic like this is great nerd bait.

One could argue that end users will benefit if the GNOME Foundation is
adequately funded, and if more people are made aware of that.

Is the main concern that this is about asking for monetary donation?

Or is the main concern that it shows a "nag" screen reminding the user
about some philosophical or project-specific matter, which may or may
not be about a donation?

Or is only the combination of those two a problem?

This seems more complex than it looks on the surface.

Maybe we could develop a position statement with recommendations for
package maintainers how to go about reasoning about this topic?  I don't
see how any hard policy or ruling on this could even be phrased.  We
could give general recommendations and suggestions, but leave things up
to each maintainer.  I've seen a couple of packages (cannot recall which
now, riseup-vpn may have been one) with similar issues, but I never
thought a lot about it even though my initial reaction was dislike.

To take a more extreme example, let's say systemd wouldn't start before
you finished watching a 1 minute video feed saying that you should buy a
Microsoft 365 subscription.  Patching that "feature" out may be
permitted by the license.  Should Debian do that?  Do we have any policy
that REQUIRES us to do that?  What would we do if Microsoft said they
would no longer sign the UEFI shim loader if we patch out the
commercial?

/Simon

Nilesh Patra <[email protected]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> [ CCing a few relevant folks for my question ]
>
> Reading this bug report made me realize, it is kind of similar for
> riseup-vpn package.
> That displays a MOTD with a "please donate if you can" banner
> everytime one runs the app.
>
> I've never got bug reports for it yet. Is that an actual problem? I'd
> feel really bad
> to remove it, and personally would not want to do it.
>
> I'm looking for advice here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> On 12/05/26 2:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> To: [email protected]
>> Package: tech-ctte
>> Severity: serious
>> Followup-For: Bug #1135385
>> X-Debbugs-Cc: [email protected],
>> [email protected]
>>=20
>> I request the Debian Technical Committee intervene regarding Bug
>> #1135385, concerning the default-enabled donation notification in
>> gnome-control-center, currently dismissed as a duplicate of Bug
>> #1120511.
>>=20
>> The maintainer, Jeremy B=C3=ADcha, has declined to address the core issu=
e,
>> that a default-enabled fundraising notification violates Debian Social
>> Contract Clause 4: "We will be guided by the needs of our users and
>> free software community. We will place their interests first."=20
>>=20
>> This feature imposes an external agenda (GNOME Foundation fundraising)
>> without user consent, undermining user autonomy and Debian=E2=80=99s eth=
ical
>> foundation. It is not a minor usability concern, but a policy and
>> philosophical violation, analogous to Bug #964359 (SMPlayer donation
>> nag), which was patched out due to reputational risk.
>>=20
>> The maintainer=E2=80=99s responses (closing as duplicate, telling users =
to
>> run commands to disable the notification, etc), fails to engage with
>> the ethical and policy dimensions. This constitutes a willful
>> disregard of Debian=E2=80=99s stewardship principles. The issue leaves no
>> remaining ambiguity and is a direct conflict between upstream agendas
>> and Debian=E2=80=99s values.
>>=20
>> Per Debian Constitution =C2=A76.1.4, I ask the TC to:
>>     Overrule the maintainer=E2=80=99s decision to dismiss Bug #1135385 a=
nd
>> to discontinue ignoring Bug #1120511.
>>     Require that the donation notification be either:
>>         Patched out of the Debian package, or
>>         Disabled by default with a clear, informed opt-in mechanism.
>>     Clarify that maintainers must consider Debian Social Contract
>> violations as actionable, especially when upstream decisions conflict
>> with user interests.
>>     Consider whether the maintainer=E2=80=99s continued refusal to addre=
ss a
>> documented policy violation constitutes an unambiguous failure of
>> stewardship.
>>=20
>> References:
>>     Bug #1135385: https://bugs.debian.org/1135385
>>     Bug #1120511: https://bugs.debian.org/1120511
>>     Bug #964359 (SMPlayer): https://bugs.debian.org/964359
>
>

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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=wkpk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--