crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
> me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat.
hmmmm.... i am not comfortable with the view that i am "above" you.
i have certain responsibilities (as guardian of EOMA68), those
responsibilities in *no* way extend beyond that remit into *your* life
in *any* way... except if you were to overstep the mark and do or say
anything that threatened EOMA68.
there's a very tight Q on the band-pass filter, where our lives
literally do not meet, and even within the extremely limited field
where they do interact, i certainly do not have any authority over
you. the one sole exception being that you are a guest of the
resources that i provide, and that, by using these resources, you
accept (accepted) that they are for the purpose of seeing the EOMA
initiative be completed (not aggravated or jeapordised in any way).
> If there
> were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.
>>> Some people
>>> apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.
>> it's by definition. an-archy *means* - by definition "without having
>> any arch".
>>> For example, Wikipedia
>>> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work
>>> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at
>>> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.
>> if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then
>> by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is
>> *by definition* no longer an an-archy.
> With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance,
> voluntary institutions etc., yes.
i would agree with you that there are different contexts.
for example: a parent with a 2-year-old child, living within an
an-archic society, *clearly* would not place their 18-month-old
child's decision-making capacity at the same priority / level as that
of themselves! funnily enough this has actually been partially taken
into account, already, within the "bill of ethics", as covered by the
section on "awareness of self-awareness".
to cater for this, we define "groups". the above example would be a
family "group" where they have their own entirely self-determined way
of dealing with and interacting with each other. the members of that
"group" would make the decision to interact with other "groups" (of
one or more people) in their organised an-archic pre-agreed fashion.
now, to expand the example even further, it may be the case that
these "groups" operate within the laws of a particular country, where
the "Hierarchical Ruler" of that country expects their laws to be
obeyed as a priority over-and-above that of any "group decisions".
thus we can see, a "group" has to set a specific focus of their
activities which do *not* encompass *all* aspects of their lives.
thus, my point is: we may set an "an-archic" decision-making process
to cover very very specific goals (such as Visa's early example
showed) - Visa's example certainly did not specifiy that the employees
had to blatantly disobey traffic laws, tax laws, or other
"Hierarchical-based" power structures that have nothing to do with the
day-to-day running of the Visa corporation as an Organised Anarchy!
>>> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
>>> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.
>> it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.
> I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code
> of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization.
... and i don't believe that it's a good idea (at all) to even *have*
a code of conduct for a larger organisation, other than to make it
absolutely clear that there is a goal, that the goal SHALL be reached
ethically and by unanimous decision-making, and that anyone who gets
in the way of achieving that goal SHALL be removed from the team.
my belief is that the "bill of ethics" is sufficient to be *the*
top-level document, and my analysis leads me to believe that it is
sufficiently strong and sufficiently clear that even *attempting* to
add a "code of conduct" is not only superfluous but would also destroy
the document's integrity.
in true respect *of* the "bill of ethics" however, there is no
certainty in that statement: there is only "very high confidence
statistical probability as empirically shown so far" :)
>>> I don’t think our opinions are far apart.
>> florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the
>> different understandings that you have of certain words which are
>> critical to the conversation. with clarity of the understanding of
>> words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions,
>> even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we
>> but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as
>> many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard /
>> measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than
>> "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination
>> and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer
>> than i have time for, for which i apologise.
> Yes, it is a problem with terms.
>>> I am quite happy with
>>> WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of
>>> profit maximization or else I would not be here.
>> can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world
>> without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read,
>> the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's
>> almost overwhelming.
> This is not the first time I heard of it. I will read it.
it's beautiful and compelling, and underscores very patiently and
logically why, if we wish to achieve sustainable goals other than
"maximisation of profits", we need to use "CICs" or in the U.S.
"Benefit Corporations". both terms are defined on wikipedia
(accurately, last time i checked), and they both fit the definition of
"Social Business" as outlined in Yunus's book.
> Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be
> “solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good.
learning the lesson from EOMA68, if you appeal to people's wallets,
they'll go for it. the fact that it's eco-conscious is just "icing on
the cake". divergentmicrofactories.com has the story about how 80% of
the environmental damage is done even before the vehicle rolls off the
sales court. that's translates to an enormous cost-saving... just by
3D printing aluminium nodes on-site and slotting carbon-fibre tubes
into them, to make up a chassis weighing in at only 30kg (as opposed
to 1,000 to 2,500 kg for a steel car / SUV).
arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk