James Bottomley
2018-Nov-30 21:01 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 12:55 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:56:52AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen > > > <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug. > > > > I hope this is some kind of joke. How would anyone get offended by > > reading technical comments? This is all beyond me... > > Well... Not a joke really but more like conversation starter :-) > > I had 10h flight from Amsterdam to Portland and one of the things > that I did was to read the new CoC properly. > > This a direct quote from the CoC: > > "Harassment includes the use of abusive, offensive or degrading > language, intimidation, stalking, harassing photography or recording, > inappropriate physical contact, sexual imagery and unwelcome sexual > advances or requests for sexual favors." > > Doesn't this fall into this category?No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.> Your argument is not that great because you could say that from any > LKML discussion. If you don't like hugging, please propose something > else > :-)The interpretation document also says this: ontributions submitted for the kernel should use appropriate language. Content that already exists predating the Code of Conduct will not be addressed now as a violation. So that definitely means there should be no hunting down of existing comments in kernel code. James
Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-Nov-30 21:44 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote:> No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't > necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored > medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain > contexts on most channels in the UK and EU.This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it. /Jarkko
David Miller
2018-Nov-30 21:48 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:44:05 -0800> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: >> No because use of what some people consider to be bad language isn't >> necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most heavily censored >> medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered acceptable in certain >> contexts on most channels in the UK and EU. > > This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker as > it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did through the > whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced from it.It would be helpful if you could explain what part of the language is unclear wrt. explaining how CoC does not apply to existing code. That part seems very explicit to me.
James Bottomley
2018-Nov-30 21:57 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH RFC 00/15] Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 13:44 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:01:02PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > No because use of what some people consider to be bad language > > isn't necessarily abusive, offensive or degrading. Our most > > heavily censored medium is TV and "fuck" is now considered > > acceptable in certain contexts on most channels in the UK and EU. > > This makes following the CoC extremely hard to a non-native speaker > as it is not too explicit on what is OK and what is not. I did > through the whole thing with an eye glass and this what I deduced > from it.OK, so something that would simply be considered in some quarters as bad language isn't explicitly banned. The thing which differentiates simple bad language from "abusive, offensive or degrading language", which is called out by the CoC, is the context and the target. So when it's a simple expletive or the code of the author or even the hardware is the target, I'd say it's an easy determination it's not a CoC violation. If someone else's code is the target or the inventor of the hardware is targetted by name, I'd say it is. Even non-native English speakers should be able to determine target and context, because that's the essence of meaning. James