Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Sunday November 23 2014, @09:19PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-love-for-trolls dept.

The Debian project has suffered from a long string of negative events recently, ranging from severe discontent over the inclusion of systemd, to talk of forking the project, to a grave bug affecting the important 'wine' package, to the resignation and reduced involvement of long time contributors.

The latest strife affecting Debian revolves around a request for a Debian package of the GPC-Slots 2 software. This request has been rejected with little more than an ad hominem attack against the software's author.

In response to the request, Stephen Gran wrote,

This is code by someone who routinely trolls Debian. I doubt we want any more poisonous upstreams in Debian, so I at least would prefer this never get packaged.

Jonathan Wiltshire proceeded to mark the request as 'wontfix', and closed it.

While Debian does strive to maintain high standards regarding the software it packages, the negative and personal nature of this rejection, without any apparent technical or licensing concerns, appears to conflict with Debian's own Code of Conduct. Such a personal attack could be seen as contradictory to the Code of Conduct's mandate that Debian participants "Be respectful", "Be collaborative", and most importantly, "Assume good faith".

Given its recent troubles as of late, many of them concerning the poor treatment of Debian developers and users alike, can Debian really afford to get embroiled in yet another negative incident?

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by fnj on Monday November 24 2014, @12:09AM

    by fnj (1654) on Monday November 24 2014, @12:09AM (#119262)

    If the game violates the charter in some specific way, let the bureaucrats note that fact with specificity, not namecall the author a "troll" without any explanation.

    Or if they just don't want to spend the slight effort on packaging the software because it's not significant enough, let them say that.

    I figure it's likely it DOES violate the charter, but in case it doesn't, let them FIX THE CHARTER. I'm sorry, but just acting all high and mighty and not deigning to give a meaningful reason for denial doesn't wash.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2