On 09/18/2016 03:37 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>  words being what they are, it's a critical, critical difference which
> indicates a fundamental and key difference between this document and
> any others that anyone (including myself) is ever likely to have
> encountered.  up until two months ago i *genuinely* thought that the
> "Bill of Rights" was a really good document.  then i heard of the
> "Bill of Ethics" and realised - only by comparison - that anything
> labelled "Rights" is downright dangerous.

Oh boy, I said Bill of Rights when I meant Bill of Ethics. Yes, the Bill
of Ethics is not rights-based. I don’t think a rights-based approach is
doomed to failure though.

>  so *even before* getting into that sort of thing, a clear
> communications and decision-making policy has to be put in place.
> honestly, if someone with 30 years of research into this field says
> that they found unanimous small groups between 7 and 9 in side of
> 50-50 men and women was *the* most effective way to get decisions
> made, i'm inclined to trust that over and above anything else.

I’m not so sure, but an environment that is hostile to some is probably
not a good one anyway.

>  and i can also see that the Bill of Ethics is sufficiently
> "low-level" that a "code of conduct" is not even necessary.

We want a high-level document (when multiple decision makers are
involved). Someone who wants to complain of bad behavior should not need
to derive their complaint from low-level ethics. Low-level ethics also
run the risk of having multiple interpretations.

arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to