Re: [PATCH] manual: Remove warning in the documentation of the abort function

[Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>]

On 10/7/19 1:32 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The warning is confusing to those who do not understand the context,
> and the warning is easy to misunderstand:
> 
> A reader needs to know that it was written by someone who is generally
> skeptical of government influence and control, otherwise it reads as
> an affirmation of the U.S. government's role as the ultimate editor of
> the manual.  This is precisely the opposite of what the warning
> intends to convey.  (Reportedly, it criticizes that several
> U.S. administrations have tried to restrict the medical advice that
> U.S.-funded health care workers can provide abroad, considering that
> censorship.)
> 
> The warning is also misleading on a technical level.  A reader who
> makes the connection to pregnancy termination will get the wrong
> impression that calling the abort function will terminate subprocesses
> of the current process, but this is not what generally happens.
> 
> Finally, for both GNU and the FSF, it is inappropriate to use female
> reproductive health as mere joke material, since these organizations
> do not concern themselves with such issues otherwise, and the warning
> is purportedly about something else entirely.
> 
> This reinstates commit 340d9652b9d0e1d4136588f18b726662d195777c
> ("manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove inappropriate
> joke."), effectively reverting the revert in commit
> ffa81c22a3ac0fb75ad9bf2b1c3cdbf9eafa0bc9 ("Revert:").
> 
> 2019-10-07  Florian Weimer  <fweimer@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* manual/startup.texi (Aborting a Program): Remove warning.
 
I have reviewed the full discussion thread.

I see 3 +1's from GNU Maintainers:

* Paul Eggert
* Joseph Myers
* Carlos O'Donell

The following developers have also given a +1:

* DJ Delorie
* Yann Droneaud
* Adhemerval Zanella
* Zack Weinberg
* Samuel Thibault

I note that Richard Stallman (GNU Project lead) has insisted that
there is more to discuss before this issue can be decided. Given
the current wait of ~1.5 years, and no progress on the issue,
I consider it a failing of the GNU Project to give timely input
on the matter. It seems clear to me that we can move forward on
this and discuss other issues separately.

I note that Alexandre Oliva (GNU Maintainer, FSF board member)
has asked we delay the decision. This was a sensible request,
request 1.5 years ago, but it is no longer a sensible request.
The status of the GNU Project and the FSF are issues to be
discussed in other venues, and they impact the glibc project only
in as much as some kind of governance change would impact glibc.

This looks like glibc project consensus to push the change.
Consensus need not imply unanimity.

Florian please feel free to push the change.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.