On 20-07-2022 06:31, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:

> I do get where you're coming from.  However, I'd argue that the issue
> with the current fortune-mod is that it doesn't really have a code of
> conduct, or at best a poorly conceived one.  Even if we removed
> obviously bad stuff like misogyny, religious intolerance and date rape,
> there are other points of contention.  For example, the user one you
> mentioned was not even listed in off, even though it might be
> classified as offensive (a harmless offense, if you ask me, but
> anyway).  All sorts of "punching up" jokes against incompetent
> politicians would also be offensive to those politicians and their
> followers even if propagating them towards greater society would be a
> good thing.  There's probably more to add here.
>
> Thus, my point is that we ought to consider a code of conduct while
> we're choosing which themes fortune-mod is allowed to propagate and
> which not (in particular our own might be a starting point).  If we
> find that patching fortune-mod is too hard as raingloom implied, we
> might instead use a more CoC-friendly fork.

Like I wrote in my previous reply, I never based my reasoning on why 
things are bad here on offense (and also not on the CoC itself but on 
the principles behind those things), though it seems you are arriving at 
about the same conclusion via a different method?

Moving to a friendly fork would be an option, but we need a fork for 
that, and I'm not finding a clear choice -- I only found those on 
<https://www.shlomifish.org/humour/fortunes/>, but most of the time they 
are often rather specific (e.g.: 'The #kernelnewbies fortune file', not 
an unified collection with lots of quotes on lots of things, so no clear 
fork springs out.

There's maybe <https://github.com/JKirchartz/fortunes>, which at first 
sight doesn't seem bad and seems to have lots of things, so if someone 
wants to preserve fortune, they can write a patch to switch to that 
fortunes database?

Greetings,
Maxime.