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 280CBCC3 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay5-d.mail.gandi.net (relay5-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.197]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86823772 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:56:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:56:34 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Message-ID: <20181010195634.GA2031@localhost> References: <20181008183423.4bdcaeea@coco.lan> <20181009070736.42b8fea5@coco.lan> <20181010105754.0a46e1b3@coco.lan> <20181010172111.GA17483@localhost> <20181010152811.073c5ca8@coco.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181010152811.073c5ca8@coco.lan> 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: , 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.)