On Fri, Aug 01, 2025 at 01:09:06AM +0200, Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jul 2025 15:40:34 +0200 > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > So yeah, spacecadet, if you really want to continue to package it, > > > we would add it to Guix, I don't think there's any policy in Guix > > > against it (unless their documentation or so is also part of the > > > package and includes political messages that promote any kind of > > > discrimination). > > > > This is entirely correct. However, as a project, we have a code of > > conduct and generally work to be inclusive, which is apparently the > > exact opposite of what this people are doing. > > > > I think we can’t ignore it or we’d be sending the wrong signal. > > This is a good point, but many people probably don't understand what it > means practically and I'd like to explain that to make sure we don't do > the wrong thing here. > ... > The problem is that [if] that kind of software makes it in Guix, it would > push Guix users and contributors to interact with its upstream in > some way, to fix this or that issue, especially when it affects Guix > (for instance fix a compilation issue with a newer compiler, etc). And > if upstream is extremely toxic that could have disastrous consequences > for these contributors. > > And this happened to me multiple times: I contributed to upstream to > fix issues I had in Guix, and once I was even very strongly pushed by > Guix to do so (with adl-submit) and became (co-)maintainer of the > project because of that. And in these cases the maintainers were nice. > > And we definitely don't want to push contributors to interact with > projects that are known to be extremely toxic, so when there are > strong allegations like the ones that were reported earlier in this > thread, if they are true, the risk of having extremely toxic > maintainership is extremely high, especially if there are not > safeguards against toxic behavior. ... > > Denis.
I agree with what you've said, I've only quoted part of it so it's not so long. I remembered that Debian has some sort of policy about this and found this thread¹ from 2009, talking about upstream being hostile to packaging or to members of Debian or generally unpleasant to work with. Also, quoting the Debian Reference manual²: If you find that the upstream developers are or become hostile towards Debian or the free software community, you may want to re-consider the need to include the software in Debian. Sometimes the social cost to the Debian community is not worth the benefits the software may bring. I've read through a small section of their mailing lists and I'm happy that they've found each other so that the rest of us (hopefully) don't need to interact with them in other projects. ¹ https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/09/msg00037.html ² https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/developer-duties.html#upstream-coordination -- Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
