Nouveau - Nov 2018 - [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

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:57:49PM -0800, James Bottomley
wrote:
> 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.
I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the part
that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so had to
revisit to find the exact paragraph):

"Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they
deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."

The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.

As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
the responsibility part here means.

I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.

Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.

/Jarkko

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows what
> the responsibility part here means.
> 
> I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even for
> existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
> 
> Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a mistake
> by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it *actually* says?
> After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than before.
Have you read Documentation/process/code-of-conduct-interpretation.rst?
As has been pointed out, it contains a clear answer to how things should
be interpreted here.

Thanks,

jon

On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:12 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
[...]
> I pasted this already to another response and this was probably the
> part that ignited me to send the patch set (was a few days ago, so
> had to revisit to find the exact paragraph):
I replied in to the other thread.
> "Maintainers have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or
> reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other
> contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, or to ban
> temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that
> they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful."
> 
> The whole patch set is neither a joke/troll nor something I would
> necessarily want to be include myself. It does have the RFC tag.
> 
> As a maintainer myself (and based on somewhat disturbed feedback from
> other maintainers) I can only make the conclusion that nobody knows
> what the responsibility part here means.
> 
> I would interpret, if I read it like at lawyer at least, that even
> for existing code you would need to do the changes postmorterm.
That's wrong in the light of the interpretation document, yes.
> Is this wrong interpretation?  Should I conclude that I made a
> mistake by reading the CoC and trying to understand what it
> *actually* says?
You can't read it in isolation, you need to read it along with the
interpretation document.  The latter was created precisely because
there was a lot of push back on interpretation problems and ambiguities
with the original CoC and it specifically covers this case (and a lot
of others).

James

> After this discussion, I can say that I understand it less than
> before.
> 
> /Jarkko
>