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