Once you land RPC DescribeFoo, I have to:
1) Define a second parallel RPC GetFoo
2) Wait for it to roll out to prod
3) Update all callers to call GetFoo, probably controlled with an experiment for safe rollover
4) Wait for all of those to roll out
5) Clean up all the callers
6) Clean up the DescribeFoo RPC
.....or you could just fix it in code review with half an hour of work.
Anyway. To me, DetermineFoo doesn't sound like a getter and seems like it might even possibly mutate some states. So, I suspect creating a GetFoo would be orthogonal to deprecating DetermineFoo. This means DetermineFoo might only Get a Foo by side-effect. That's why I would probably ignore it; simply because DetermineFoo might be a better name, in my opinion.
New behaviors occur all the time in software, but it doesn't mean we need to be rigid with naming things.
Do they not have PR's where you are from?
If someone is that annoyed by it, just open a PR. Just because I don't find it annoying, doesn't mean someone else won't. And vice-versa.
The code is mutable. It doesn't have to be perfect on the first iteration.
I will say this though: if you want me to do your nits, you also have to do mine. It's a two-way street when it comes to nits. If you don't do my nits, then I won't do yours. It's pretty simple. If you start withholding approvals because I stop doing your nits, then yay ... politics, I guess.