The folks at SFI did a paper a couple of years ago about how snippets of constitutions have propagated into other constitutions around the world…
… Bob > On May 7, 2020, at 2:23 PM, Steven A Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nick - > > I doubt I can do justice to this for you, but will give a try. > > The idea(l) behind open-source is two-fold: > develop a "commons" of re-useable resources to be shared by all. This > concept really took off with the introduction of Linus Thorvald's Adaptation > of BSD Unix to run on IBM PCs and an explosion of software built on top of > and around that one thing. This movement began a lot earlier and the world > of Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) variant of ATT Unix was perhaps the > strongest center for that... other efforts I was aware of include things like > the Andrew File System (AFS) out of CMU (nod to Frank) and project Athena out > of MIT. > crowdsource the troubleshooting, debugging, and validation of system's > design. By making the source code available and free to use (with some > restrictions), large numbers of system/software designers become motivated to > look at, adopt, improve, build-upon that code-base and thereby improve and > vet the code well. There are notable exceptions indicating that big > holes/bugs can exist in spite of this scrutiny. I think there was a hoopla a > few years ago around some (obvious?) security holes in the primary > open-source router software used in most pro-sumer grade network routers, and > maybe even commercial-class ones. > This GitHub thing Roger posted is (as Roger indicated in his subject/post) is > clearly trolling on behalf of the anti-lockdown movement... trying to use the > open-source community mechanism (open and free view of the software and the > process of it's development, and the ability for anyone to pitch in, comment, > criticize) against the ideas behind this particular model (and ANY? similar > model). > > I'm not sure this is a first, but from what I know, there haven't been > "political" trolls haranguing GitHub mediated open-source efforts... there > have probably been "religious" wars between differing schools of thought on > the best way to solve a particular problem, but the preferred way to handle > that is to FORK the project and let the alternative subset go pursue their > alternative ideas. > > To some extent, this is the way the world is responding to the pandemic at a > policy level. Each country roughly has it's own unique/idiosyncratic > response to the pandemic... some perhaps taking their lead from others. > Within the USA (and I presume other "federated" governments) we have > states/governors following the general guidelines (lame as they may be) of > the federal government and modifying/elaborating them to match their regional > context, and again each county/city/borough/neighborhood may well do the > same. In principle these policies are open and transparent as are the data > that are gathered at each level on the resources expended and the results > obtained. This is the Open-Data aspect that Tom Johnson and others here > promote. > > The US Constitution (and our entire body of law) might be considered > open-source and I suspect more than a few states and younger countries have > borrowed parts of our constitution and legal system to build their own from > (for better and worse)... just as our Foundling Fatheds apparently used some > of the features exhibited by the (orally maintained) Iroquois Federation and > the ideas of French political thinkers such as Montesquieu. > > </ramble> > > - Steve > >> Marcus, >> >> Thanks for taking my question seriously. I understood what I was talking >> about even less than I usually do. >> >> Let’s say I was an evil genius and wanted to introduce evil code into a >> project on github. What would happen? >> >> N >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> >> >> >> From: Friam <[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> >> On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels >> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 11:05 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Meanwhile, back on the troll farms >> >> Nick writes: >> >> < What exactly IS the policing mechanism in open source. Darwinian? >> Reputational? Does this HAVE to provoke a crisis of confidence in the >> general public? Or could it be seen as a heroic thrown-together first step >> that is now being improved? > >> >> They are whining about simple or absent unit tests as a litmus test for >> whether the code is reliable. It’s like saying you don’t dare drive your >> car if you didn’t take out its alternator and test its voltage output last >> week. ‘cause someone might have changed the alternator! Eventually there >> will be consequences if the alternator fails, like stalling or the battery >> dying. Same thing in a big simulation. All of the parts and pieces of a >> simulation are there for a reason and global things will start to change in >> noticeable ways if something is broken. I would say getting mechanisms >> working correctly is less difficult that choosing what mechanisms are >> appropriate in the first place. Usually in use of a simulation one has >> instrumentation available on almost everything, and there is a constant >> checking and double- checking even if those checks are not embodied in >> automated tests. Automated tests can even give a false sense of security, >> because they may not deal with the parameter ranges that happen in with the >> coupled system. If you would rather have a bunch of unit tests, or to have >> modelers using and stressing the code every day, you have the wrong >> priorities. >> >> My irritation is with the notion of unit tests as a prerequisite for code >> reliability. There are tighter ways to integrate assertions of code >> behavior with the code. The bandwagon obsession with unit tests is in some >> sense an obstacle even better practices. I wouldn’t even call them trolls, >> because a troll has intention to rile people up. These folks are more like >> pompous ditto heads who feel the need to posture about the right way to do >> software engineering. People that love unit tests love not understanding >> the problem they are solving, and prefer to work in pieces. This take a is >> a little harsh, but in this context (advising COVID-19 policy) I don’t find >> the behavior very helpful. >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... >> .... . ... >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> >> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> > .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... > .... . ... > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> > unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com> > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/>
.-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
