On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 12:57:51PM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:23:57PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

> > Fully agreed on that. The same argument that we use for GPL 2 only
> > applies here: we should stick with an specific version of this it, in
> > a way that we won't be automatically bound to whatever new version
> > of it would say.

> Linking to a FAQ with useful clarifications in it doesn't make those
> "binding". This is *not* a legal agreement.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to interpret the contributor
covenant in that sort of fashion - one of the consequences of the fact
that it does things people want like be explicit about exactly what
behaviours it's covering, specify consequences and so on is that it
looks a lot like how things that are intended to be some sort of legal
document look.  This is going to be especially true for non-native
speakers.  If it is causing problems that needs some clarification but
to be honest if people are erring on the side of taking the code of
conduct too seriously that doesn't seem like the worst thing ever.