From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4946 invoked by alias); 10 May 2018 11:43:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4936 invoked by uid 89); 10 May 2018 11:43:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=American, american X-HELO: NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com From: Chester Gregg To: Alexandre Oliva , Siddhesh Poyarekar CC: Torvald Riegel , Florian Weimer , Carlos O'Donell , Zack Weinberg , "libc-alpha@sourceware.org" Subject: RE: [rain1@airmail.cc] Delete abortion joke Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 11:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <87wowkx6t0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <1525726559.7567.634.camel@redhat.com> <1525771563.7567.708.camel@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:BE9A41F8A7EAFFD0C4F968B73B691C8355DD5E9283E239FEEF19C71275A97C27;UpperCasedChecksum:12C20B2A7F9B448BAA63229BA53CAA29F499F8F342D166A17061C48B2F4F7CEA;SizeAsReceived:8054;Count:47 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [msuJr3DuzkDo9Cwp/GoU95YiLVMG3jOBNRFh/CffavsYNKIYfGb/cghz+sCEu4s6] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;BN3NAM04HT182;7:REsryH9r/LyWypH1oEU1ef+gF9nt3TpcqkrPexajeDnVAo7XGaXZK0JV84KlBacOAuXX0yCQSDefjTOgMbG6h/0IMJ3mTX+2XHiEDTNzDneaT/sRh/X1KkA83EZchK/RcD3xqSh0HNY246QA1/xGi2EIlxi/Z4tAHNvbwt1d4n1nFoHuwajAnLj/nkghauPovHccBKkFu+Tm3u2KAElcXugZZx4Q9HCDbHfJwDDBeX/O7Eqr2m+JqmNlpa0HEEEs x-incomingheadercount: 47 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(7020095)(201702061078)(5061506573)(5061507331)(1603103135)(2017031320274)(2017031324274)(2017031323274)(2017031322404)(1601125420)(1603101448)(1701031045);SRVR:BN3NAM04HT182; x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN3NAM04HT182: x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(444000031);SRVR:BN3NAM04HT182;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BN3NAM04HT182; x-forefront-prvs: 066898046A x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;SFS:(7070007)(189003)(199004)(6246003)(99286004)(4326008)(6436002)(55016002)(229853002)(33656002)(82202002)(11346002)(561944003)(104016004)(476003)(106356001)(486006)(20460500001)(426003)(5250100002)(14454004)(46003)(446003)(3660700001)(74316002)(93886005)(105586002)(68736007)(59450400001)(87572001)(305945005)(25786009)(86362001)(8936002)(8676002)(3280700002)(6306002)(76176011)(54906003)(6346003)(966005)(110136005)(5660300001)(7696005)(102836004)(2900100001)(81156014)(97736004)(222073002)(220923002);DIR:OUT;SFP:1901;SCL:1;SRVR:BN3NAM04HT182;H:CY4PR16MB1799.namprd16.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;PTR:InfoNoRecords;MX:1;A:1;LANG:; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: outlook.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=chetgregg@outlook.com; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: qt6MO1zy1j1zXhd+ZySaSD4dKGOtDhhMJy2riq+X27srQfj6t5EQqF/lTaXHq53OGx+ob5qoXYxxNsa5DgYVYhaG4mQQ3PgRxhKN3XdeHIINHgYM0i0sXNAv8sEoa4mv4hJDX1BuKrB7e4PLqD+ZqYA+cMcqLJNOKjJBnBzAXuMPJy9wtdyOWK8/DK7+/ywN Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 22a9e392-3539-4d14-91bc-08d5b66b436a X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: dd759f05-a917-4aa0-a2f5-4cc35c50e0c8 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 22a9e392-3539-4d14-91bc-08d5b66b436a X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: dd759f05-a917-4aa0-a2f5-4cc35c50e0c8 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 May 2018 11:43:35.1006 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN3NAM04HT182 X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00466.txt.bz2 Alexandre Oliva wrote: > DJ's objection to the joke counts as objection to the proposal restoring = the initial conditions because, after the fact, he says it meant it to be d= espite not having confirmed even reading the proposal. > Other's claims, also after the fact, that they just refrained from voicin= g their positions because DJ's had already stated his also count. > Ondrej's objection to removing the joke, however, doesn't count unless he= restates it, because it might have been meant just as a joke, and nobody t= hought of asking him to confirm *before* going ahead and running over it. > RMS's objection to removing the joke, written down next to the joke, does= n't count, because, well and, yeah, we it should ha= ve, but, but, we didn't, and sorry, it's too late now. > My and anyone else's unstated objection to removing the joke, that was no= t posted in a hurry because Ondrej's objection already was in effect, no, s= orry, that doesn't count, because... we don't want it to either. > Are you not even just a little bit ashamed of displaying such a blatant b= ias? The initial patch had a consensus. You're the only person I've seen propose that Ond=F8ej's remark may have actually been serious. It read as a joke to everyone at the time of the patch, and nearly everyone since. I admit, base= d on my life experiences and culture, I don't understand why you would think tha= t it was a serious objection. I'm trying, but your view of this as a serious com= ment and RMS's joke as funny is not shared with the community at large. That's f= ine, but does serve to underline the central point being made by many others: hu= mor is usually not an effective means of communicating seriously. Especially on= the internet, devoid of body language and vocal tone, with people from many dif= fent life experiences and cultures. I don't want to stifle humor in every context; it's generally fine in a sma= ll community such as this mailing list, where people get to know each other, a= nd where dialogue can commence when there's confusion. It's just not appropria= te in a user-facing technical manual. Not everyone is going to parse it the sa= me way. Even with the added benefit of knowing it was supposed to be a joke, b= eing an American, and having heard of the rule being criticized, it still took t= ime to dissect the joke and understand what it was haphazardly trying to say. As E.B. White famously observed, this kills the joke. If Ond=F8ej's remark was serious, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I= hope he corrects the record. It doesn't change the community understanding at the time of the patch. RMS's objection, in comment form, predates the Pentium. His last commit to glibc is nearly as old (1996). His last involvement on this mailing list is over 2 years old. He's simply not involved in the project's development, as= far as I can see. It would have been a courtesy to seek his opinion, but so was= the perceived courtesy of not wasting his time asking him about it. It's also n= ot a requirement, wouldn't have changed the consensus, and that's why he's on the mailing list. If objections aren't on the record, they don't exist. Given that consensus = does not require unanimity, every objection needs to be stated. Even if it was j= ust a notice that you were reaching out to RMS for his opinion, and requesting = that the community wait. If objections are raised later, a patch should be submi= tted and the consensus process will bear it out if that's actually the consensus. --- In regards to your previous description of the patch as being "sneaky", tha= t's uncalled-for. This was the removal of a few lines of a non-technical, outda= ted joke comment that hasn't been touched in 26 years. It hasn't even been discussed in 19 years, as far as I can tell [1]. 2 days passed between when= the patch was submitted and when it was installed, with no serious objections. = That was plenty of time for a change of this narrow magnitude to reach a reasona= ble consensus. There was no reason for Zach to believe that this seemingly innocuous removal would cause such a schism. On the contrary, when the patch was reverted, that violated the community principles. You should have understood that it would be controversial, as lively debate was still ongoing. Every change should follow the same proced= ure. According to those community principles: Cases likely to need more review and a longer period before pushing a commit include: changes that have previously been controversial. [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/glibc-linux/1999-q3/msg00012.html