| Message ID | 20181130192737.15053-1-jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Zero ****s, hugload of hugs <3 | expand |
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:56:52 -0800 > I hope this is some kind of joke. Whether or not it is a joke, it is censorship. And because of that I have no intention to apply any patches like this to any code I am in charge of.
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@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? 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 :-) /Jarkko
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@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
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800 Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> 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@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? > It has also been discussed that existing code (and past conduct) will not be covered under the CoC. It's about new code and conduct moving forward. -- Steve
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:55:21 -0800 Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > 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." ...and this is from the interpretation document: > Contributions 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 existing code is explicitly not a CoC violation and need not be treated as such. That said, improvements to the comments are always welcome, as long as they are actually improvements. Thanks, jon
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:40:17AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:27 AM Jarkko Sakkinen > <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > In order to comply with the CoC, replace **** with a hug. > > Heh. I support the replacement of the stronger language, but I find > "hug", "hugged", and "hugging" to be very weird replacements. Can we > bikeshed this to "heck", "hecked", and "hecking" (or "heckin" to > follow true Doggo meme style). > > "This API is hugged" doesn't make any sense to me. "This API is > hecked" is better, or at least funnier (to me). "Hug this interface" > similarly makes no sense, but "Heck this interface" seems better. > "Don't touch my hecking code", "What the heck were they thinking?" > etc... "hug" is odd. > > Better yet, since it's only 17 files, how about doing context-specific > changes? "This API is terrible", "Hateful interface", "Don't touch my > freakin' code", "What in the world were they thinking?" etc? I'm happy to refine this (thus the RFC tag)! And depending on the culture, hugging could fall in the harrasment category. Actually, when I think about it, in Finland this kind of poking of ones personal bubble would be such :-) I'll refine the patch set with more context sensitive replacements, perhaps removing the comment altogether in some places. Thank you for the feedback! /Jarkko
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:09:48PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Or just leave it as is because we're all grown up and don't freak out > when a piece of text contains the word "fuck". > > I still don't understand why people think that the word "fuck" is what > would keep certain groups from contributing to the Linux kernel. In all > seriousness, it doesn't. Are you making a claim that your personal experience, and maybe your mates, is the objective truth, or am I misunderstanding something? /Jarkko
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 09:31:13PM +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote: > Like John I don't think that the word "fuck" is something we have to ban from > the source code, but I don't care too much. Anyway, please don't change it to > something like heck as it might be difficult for non-english speaker to understand. I make context sensitive better thought updates based on the feedback that Kees gave. I used RFC tag for a reason. /Jarkko
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 08:42:23PM +0000, Chris Mason wrote: > I think the bar for changing the documentation/comments should be > improvement in the clarity or approachability of whatever is being > changed. > > This patch set is kind of like Linus sitting at kernel summit with a > sign that says "Free Hugs". Kind of confusing, and really unlikely to > make anyone involved happier about working on the kernel. > > Jarkko, making things clearer and more approachable is absolutely worth > the time if you're interested, but I think it'll mean larger and more > individualized changes to these files. Fully 110% agree. /Jarkko
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
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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.
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:48:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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. Well, now that I re-read it, it was this part to be exact: "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." How this should be interpreted? I have not really followed the previous CoC discussions as I try to always use polite language so I'm sorry if this duplicate. /Jarkko
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, 2018-11-30 at 13:54 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 01:48:08PM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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. > > Well, now that I re-read it, it was this part to be exact: > > "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." > > How this should be interpreted? Firstly, this is *only* about contributions going forward. The interpretation document says we don't have to look back into the repository and we definitely can't remove something from git that's already been committed. As a Maintainer, if you feel bad language is inappropriate for your subsystem then you say so and reject with that reason patches that come in containing it (suggesting alternative rewordings). However, your determination about what is or isn't acceptable in your subsystem isn't binding on other maintainers, who may have different standards ... this is identical to what we do with coding, like your insistence on one line per variable or other subsystem's insistence on reverse christmas tree for includes ... James > I have not really followed the previous CoC discussions as I try to > always use polite language so I'm sorry if this duplicate. > > /Jarkko >
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@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, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800 > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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. Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to single common sense code of conduct? /Jarkko
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 >
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:26:05PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800 > > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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. > > Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. > > Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged to > single common sense code of conduct? I.e. if the latter that you pointed out tells you what you actually should do what value does the former bring? Just looked up archives and realized that there has been whole alot of CoC related discussions. No wonder this is seen as waste of time. /Jarkko
On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:26 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: [...] > > 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. > > Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. > > Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged > to single common sense code of conduct? The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months ... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think we don't want to reopen that can of worms. James
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:30:45PM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Fri, 2018-11-30 at 14:26 -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:14:59PM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > [...] > > > 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. > > > > Ugh, was not aware that there two documents. > > > > Yeah, definitely sheds light. Why the documents could not be merged > > to single common sense code of conduct? > > The fact that we've arrived at essentially an original CoC > reinterpreted to the point where it's effectively a new CoC has been > the source of much debate and recrimination over the last few months > ... you can read it in the ksummit-discuss archives, but I really think > we don't want to reopen that can of worms. Got you... Well I now read the 2nd amendment now through, and yeah, kind of way I work/function anyway. Thank you for the patience... /Jarkko
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 02:40:19PM -0800, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > Got you... Well I now read the 2nd amendment now through, and yeah, kind > of way I work/function anyway. Ugh, looked up the word from dictionary for something that makes additions to some guidelines because did not know the english word. Not meant as a political reference of any kind. Just don't know any better English word. /Jarkko
Hi Jon, On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:15 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800 > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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. Indeed: | Contributions 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. However: | Inappropriate language can be seen as a | bug, though; such bugs will be fixed more quickly if any interested | parties submit patches to that effect. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
Hi Guys, I initially thought these patches were a joke. But I guess they are not. I suppose 2018 is the year everything became offensive. Could we avoid the s/fuck/hug/g though? I have nothing against re-wording this stuff to remove the curse word, but it should at least make sense. What's going to happen is someone is a newbie is going to see a comment like "We found an mark in the idr at the right wd, but it's not the mark we were told to remove. eparis seriously hugged up somewhere", probably google the term as they are unfamiliar with it, find out it's an alias for "fucked" and if they are sensitive get offended anyway. On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 08:20, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:15 PM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:12:19 -0800 > > Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@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. > > Indeed: > > | Contributions 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. > > However: > > | Inappropriate language can be seen as a > | bug, though; such bugs will be fixed more quickly if any interested > | parties submit patches to that effect. > > Gr{oetje,eeting}s, > > Geert > > -- > Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org > > In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But > when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. > -- Linus Torvalds