On 09/22/2016 04:51 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>>>  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" :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OK, I hope there will never be disputes about whether a …ist joke really
>> was so unethical.
> 
>  i see that you're still concerned, which means that you don't follow.
> first thing that has to be made absolutely clear: your concern is
> completely unfounded.  but let's not leave it at that: let's walk
> through a few scenarios where you will be able to *see* that your
> concern is totally and completely unfounded.
> 
>  (1) if there are people whose intent is to create disruption by
> making "-ist" jokes (i.e. they are driven by ego, self-promotion, or
> are simply psychologically unwell), and those people are also acting
> in an official capacity as representatives of EOMA68 (Guardians plural
> or Ambassadors of the EOMA68 Standard and its goals), then those
> people can be said to have *two* goals, can't they?
> 
>  there is therefore a "conflict of interest" between their role as
> "seeking to promote their personal and probably egoistic and
> psychologically unbalanced personal agenda by making '-ist' jokes" and
> "guardian or ambassador of the EOMA68 standard", isn't there?
> 
>  *therefore* there would be a case, under the Bill of Ethics, to
> reprimand their behaviour and to act immediately and decisively to
> curtail their behaviour WITHOUT REQUIRING A CODE OF CONDUCT TO DO SO.
> 
>  (2) specialisation of the above: if there are people who work in
> SECRET and make "-ist" jokes IN SECRET amongst themselves in a way
> that they IN SECRET laugh at and find to be hilarious and are not
> offended by at all IN SECRET, whilst at the same time in whose outward
> appearance (external communications) they act flawlessly and perfectly
> in their role as "Guardian(s) or Ambassador(s) of the EOMA68 standard
> and its goals", there is nothing that can be said or done to criticise
> them as they are in fact fulfilling their primary role.
> 
>  HOWEVER, if their SECRET personal conversations were to be made
> accidentally made public, now we have a problem, and they will need to
> be dealt with.  once again, however: there is NO NEED FOR A CODE OF
> CONDUCT.  it could be said that it would be nice if those people
> didn't *have* such secret conversations in which they engaged in
> behaviour which *IF* made public could bring their primary role into
> disrepute, but that's entirely in retrospect: they should have thought
> about that beforehand, and we just have to clean up the mess
> afterwards (just like you would any other public dog's dinner
> political mess where a politician is discovered to have business
> interests or private affairs that cause him to have to resign, or as
> happens when a celebrity's personal and totally private
> sexually-explicit photos are dumped onto the internet).
> 
> 
>  we can probably think of some other scenarios, but they will be
> similarly logical to the above: in each and every one, with the goal
> *being* the absolute priority, and the Bill of Ethics *being* the
> means by which actions are considered, then, in a very specific,
> targetted and indirect way i believe that you will find that there is
> absolutely no need for a "Code of Conduct" to even be discussed.
> 
>  which brings me on to one final point: discussing and fearing that a
> code of conduct is *required* when i believe i've logically
> demonstrated that the Bill of Ethics is sufficient (or, more
> specifically, "has a very high probability of being sufficient") is
> itself absorbing time and effort which is distracting from fulfilling
> the EOMA68 goal.  now, i've been deliberately very patient, and
> covered this in a way which i think you'll understand is a hell of a
> lot better than esr's recommended approach, "ah: i see that you are
> using a Type D Kafka-esque Trap. fuck off", because the circumstances
> and intent are entirely different.
> 
>  in the examples that esr gives, he's advising on how to deal with
> people who make specific instances of attacks of the type that he's
> identified.  if you recall, the "trials" are basically accusations
> where if you say yes you're fucked, and if you say no you're fucked.
> such attacks are *deliberately designed* as a form of slander and/or
> entrapment.
> 
>  however, florian, in raising this topic the circumstances are
> slightly different: you're trying to help.  you're suggesting a means
> by which such attacks (internal or external) may be *avoided*, and you
> *believe* that a "code of conduct" is a good way to do that.
> 
>  in being patient and explaining why i fundamentally disagree with the
> need for a "code of conduct" - because any "code" of "conduct" may be
> *derived* from the Bill of Ethics - i trust that you (or anyone else
> for that matter) will be able to come up with specific
> counter-examples that *specifically* demonstrate that the Bill of
> Ethics is insufficient, but if not, i am going to have to ask that
> this topic be brought to a close, as it's really, really taking up far
> too much time.  remember, this is a big list, now, and there are
> several thousand more people on the crowd-funding list who will be
> wondering why so much time is being taken up with this discussion
> instead of having their promises fulfilled.
> 

Yes, I consider it closed. I wanted a CoC to make sure we can avoid
disputes, so there’s no point in having one now.

>>>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> I believe sustainable mobility requires that we demand less with respect
>> to speed, reach etc. and not only hope for better technology. A light
>> 30kg chassis sounds nice but less safe in a high-speed crash.
> 
>  geodesic structural analysis and crash-test simulations can be done
> to show otherwise, followed by actual real-world tests.  typically in
> such vehicles you use the front wheels as part of the crumple-zone,
> providing guides near the front occupants legs that allow the wheels
> to be shunted sideways as they are crushed.   many companies that
> create Category L7e (heavy quadricycle) vehicles actually put their
> vehicles through crash-test certification and pass with flying
> colours, even though they are not legally required to do so.  the
> burden of responsibility therefore falls on the driver to make an
> informed decision and to drive accordingly.
> 
>  also it turns out that Category L7e vehicles, by way of being such
> reduced acceleration and size and having a completely different engine
> sound (less sound deadening material but such a small engine that it's
> not actually needed) are *immediately* identified by other drivers as
> "requires a little bit more care".  thus not only does the driver of a
> Category L7e vehicle drive with a bit more care, but *surrounding*
> drivers also drive with a bit more care.  the end result is,
> paradoxically, that there are far less accidents involving Category
> L7e vehicles than there are with other vehicles.
> 
> l.
>

It’s mostly the other drivers I’m concerned about when I read test
results like these [1]. But yes, these L7e vehicles look like they could
be made sustainable.

[1]
http://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/safety-campaigns/2016-quadricycles-tests/

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to