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

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

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.

Thanks,
Mauro