Re: [Ksummit-discuss] New CoC and Brendan Eich

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>]

Em Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:56:34 -0700
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> 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 <josh@joshtriplett.org> 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