On 09/22/2016 01:39 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>> 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.
> ok so i'm happy to continue this, because this is a different example
> from the others. statement to be evaluated:
> "a code of conduct will help make sure that disputes are avoided".
> the rest of the sentence is logically inconsistent, so i'm going to
> ignore it. as in: i don't see the connection - let me know if you
> feel it's relevant.
“I wanted a CoC to make sure we can avoid disputes, so there’s no point
in having *a dispute* now.” is what I meant.
> so. scenario (1) there's a code of conduct and a dispute comes up
> (because somebody violates the "code of conduct"). how then is it
> possible to *avoid* such a dispute arising... just because of the
> *existence* of the "code of conduct"? if someone REALLY wants to
> start a dispute, first thing that they'll do is: IGNORE the "code of
> therefore, the "dispute" still will occur, therefore it still has to
> be dealt with, therefore, logically, the *existence* of a "code of
> conduct" has absolutely nothing to do with "avoiding disputes".
> scenario (2) there's no code of conduct, there's nothing in place (at
> all) that's well-defined. in this instance, anybody who REALLY WANTS
> to create a "dispute" will just pick a fight, no matter what.
> thus, their DESIRE to create a "dispute" has absolutely nothing to
> with the EXISTENCE or otherwise of a "code of conduct".
> scenario (3) there's the "bill of ethics" in place and a dispute comes
> up. someone ignores _that_ and says something which is sufficiently
> offensive that it causes a massive distraction, in direct violation of
> the goal of "fulfilling the EOMA68 goals in strict-ethical fashion".
> is the "bill of ethics" sufficient to deal with this disruption? yes
> it is (as demonstrated by the two examples given in the previous
If there is a code of conduct, the dispute resolution process looks like
this: “What you did is *exactly* what is forbidden by the code of
conduct, so you are wrong. Case closed.” With just the bill of ethics,
you may have a discussion on whether it really causes a distraction or
whether the victim should just accept it instead of making a fuss. Now
that discussion may have the same result, but it is more demanding on
everyone, especially the victim.
> we still know that the "dispute" will still occur, we can't avoid
> *not* to deal with disputes, we might as well be ready *to* deal with
> them (because they are part of entropy), and the "bill of ethics" is
> (as best can be assessed so far) a reasonable framework on which to
> begin dealing with such. so again, there is no problem.
> so scenario (1) and scenario (2) demonstrate that the desire to have a
> CoC so as to "avoid disputes" is logically inconsistent, i.e. the
> existence of a CoC or otherwise has absolutely no bearing on the
> desire to ensure that disputes are avoided.
> with the ability to *assess* the acceptability of *any* form of
> "conduct" being *derived* from the "Bill of Ethics", we can logically
> see that there is absolutely no need for a CoC. as yet there have
> been no examples presented which contradict that, we go with.... "The
> Bill of Ethics".
> arm-netbook mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk