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 10B8CC6F for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:28:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81E82784 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:28:24 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:28:11 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Josh Triplett Message-ID: <20181010152811.073c5ca8@coco.lan> In-Reply-To: <20181010172111.GA17483@localhost> References: <6108593.JtmfA2IdsK@avalon> <20181008183423.4bdcaeea@coco.lan> <20181009070736.42b8fea5@coco.lan> <20181010105754.0a46e1b3@coco.lan> <20181010172111.GA17483@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 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. Thanks, Mauro