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

[Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>]

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.