Re: CoC policy for package contents

Hi Luke,

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 07:49:24PM +0200, Luke W Faraone wrote:
> On 21/07/2025 19:22, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Do I think the answer "the code of conduct does not apply to packages in
> > Debian and anything is allowed there" is appropriate? Well, that's
> > complicated, as then that opens the door to blatant coc violations in
> > changelog entries. Someone writing a changelog entry with "**** the XYZ
> > team for making my life a living hell with this stupid requirement" in
> > it is potentially violating the code of conduct.
> 
> Noting briefly: yes, the "debian/" directory / tarball is a "mode of
> communication within the project" and already covered by the CoC.

Thanks for that note. I hadn't intended that interpretation when I
originally wrote that sentence, but it's actually a very valid
interpretation of it and it is a good rule, so I'm happy that you do
interpret it that way :-)

It does mean that a potential package content policy wouldn't have to
worry too much about having to deal with differentiation between
debian-specific and not debian-specific contents, as we could just say
"native packages and the contents of the debian directory for non-native
packages fall under the coc" and be done with that bit.

So that's a whole tangled mess avoided :-D

Hi Mathias,

On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 09:15:14AM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst: " CoC policy for package contents (was: Re: Can the
>   community team remove packages or kick me out for not removing packages?)"
>   (Mon, 21 Jul 2025 13:02:32 +0200):
> 
> Hi Wouter,
> 
> > I intend to make this a formal GR proposal with the third option in the
> > above list a few weeks from now, unless the thread is still full-on and
> > productive by then.
> 
> I appreciate a lot your proposal. Would it make sense to delay a little bit
> further, because in a few weeks from now quite some interested people at least
> in EU will be on vacation?

I think the early feedback shows that it's a complicated matter with a
lot more corner cases than I anticipated at first sight, so I imagine it
might take quite a while to get to something useful anyway.

I may have to bite the bullet and write something separate, like I
suggested as the fourth option in my original message. Sigh. We'll get
there.