From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 777BBC84 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:12:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F247178B for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:12:27 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Josh Triplett Message-ID: <20181010171227.3f8e681f@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20181010195634.GA2031@localhost> References: <20181008183423.4bdcaeea@coco.lan> <20181009070736.42b8fea5@coco.lan> <20181010105754.0a46e1b3@coco.lan> <20181010172111.GA17483@localhost> <20181010152811.073c5ca8@coco.lan> <20181010195634.GA2031@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:56:34 -0700 Josh Triplett escreveu: > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 03:28:11PM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:21:11 -0700 > > Josh Triplett escreveu: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 10:57:54AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > > With regards to (2), I have to add that idiomatic expression violations > > > > are really hard to be detected by non-native English speakers. > > > > > > > > Recently, I wanted to post about exchanging gpg keys on an event > > > > we'll have. As this is something that I don't commonly organize, I browsed > > > > the Internet to check the proper term (it is "key chain party" or > > > > "key signing party"). On my google search, I omitted one of the words on > > > > that phase, and discovered an idiomatic expression that could be argued > > > > as a CoC violation. > > > > > > Unintentionally using a phrase like that seems easy enough to handle > > > with a reply (on-list or off, as appropriate) saying "You might wish to > > > rephrase that as 'key signing party' or similar, because the phrase you > > > used is also an idiom with risque connotations." > > > > > > To contrast that with the kind of *intentional* issue that would prompt > > > a less forgiving response (especially if repeated), consider if someone > > > submitted a script to manage such parties, named it "key-party", and > > > filled it with other related innuendo, to the point that there's no > > > doubt they were doing so intentionally. Sounds ridiculous, and yet there > > > are plenty of examples of that and worse in FOSS history. > > > > Yes, I know that an unintentional mention would have a completely > > different treatment. > > > > The point is that, as a maintainer, if one would write a patch with such > > expression - or whatever other idiomatic sentence that would have a "hidden" > > meaning inside it for non native speakers - I would probably end by applying > > it without I even realize about the issue. > > And the same notion of intent applies there, too. Mistakes happen, and > when they really are mistakes, that's not a critical issue. I'd assume > you'd also quickly apply a patch someone sent you to fix it. (By > contrast with someone who, for instance, might go off on a rant if asked > to do so.) Surely, but, except if I receive such fix soon enough, I probably won't be rebasing the tree (as rebasing a master tree usually causes damage to a lot of people). So, the bad wording will stay forever at the git history - and will probably be backported to -stable too (if stable people won't notice). Thanks, Mauro