On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, rodent%NetBSD.org@localhost wrote:
I'm responding to the recent posts ITT, because it seems there's some misunderstanding:
I had no idea what ITT meant, until I looked it up. (ITT = "in this thread", apparently).
1) What has been committed is no more "offensive" than the existing material in wtf and fortune. Please, review fortune's data files if any doubts exist;2) wtf and fortune have existed in source since $TIME without any uproar;3) There aren't any rules documenting appending entries to either;4) We don't tend to make up rules as we go along committing;
We have a rule or at least a convention that things that are likely to be controversial should be discussed first. If you don't realise that something is controversial, and commit without discussion, then the appropriate response is to engage in discussion as soon as you learn that the issue was controversial. Continuing without discussion is not appropriate.
I think that NetBSD's acronyms file should be for acronyms that ordinary people are likely to encounter in ordinary situations; not for acronyms used in some small subculture.
--apb (Alan Barrett)