Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi,

If I may trespass on the discussion...

The first rule of engineering (alright, make that "one of the many first
rules of engineering") is "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".

Right now, IMO and AFAICT, there have been no incidents related to the
conduct of any participant in this project -- or if one prefers, no
incidents which any code or bill would have sorted out faster, let alone
prevented.

Therefore, I believe this project is not broken it a way that a code
or bill would (aim to) fix; hence, no such code or bill is needed, at
least ATM.

Actually, the most intensely disrupting event in this project (IMO, of
course) is... this discussion, which, while interesting indeed, diverts
part of our energy from the project itself and is beginning to span
quite a share of the current traffic.

Furthermore, it seems to me that at this point, this discussion could go
on indefinitely, because -- to my eyes -- it is now a confrontation of
opinions, which is fine, mind you :), but does not easily lead to
conclusions; as time progresses in such a situation, less and less new
arguments are offered, and more and more arguments already made are
repeated.

[ Besides, from a logician's standpoint, if this discussion was to
linger on much more, I would find it unsatisfactory that it might
become a /cause/ for putting a code or bill in place in order to
prevent any future discussion dragging from happening again. :) ]

Therefore, and based on my personal feeling regarding the state of this
discussion, I respectfully suggest that if this discussion must go on,
maybe it should go on in another forum, or in private exchanges if
participants so prefer.

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:

>> It hopefully will not ever matter.
>
>  it will not ever matter.

>>  I fear taking away too much of your time
>> when you have more urgent things to do.

 ok: let me expand on the above "it will not ever matter".  if you
don't mind me pointing this out, you've demonstrated that you're
unable to follow comprehensive logic.  this is what's taking up my
time.

 boolean logic from programming gives us chains: A AND B AND C etc. is
only true *if all* A, B, C etc. are true.  thus if we have even one
single statement that is false, the entire chain falls down.  likewise
with A OR B OR C: this is true if even *one* of A, B or C is true.
thus, the only way for an OR-chain to be false is if *all* statements
are false.

 i have (so far) demonstrated two things:

 (1) that there exists SIX separate statements found so far which make
a CoC utterly and fatally unsuitable for use.  it doesn't matter if
you were to disagree with five of them: the last remaining one would,
all on its own, be sufficient grounds to carpet-bomb a CoC into
complete oblivion.

 (2) that for the Bill of Ethics all examples given (so far -
admittedly only two but there was additional analysis as well) stand
up to scrutiny.  thus in the case of the BoE it stands up to the "AND"
chain of logic.

now, despite this, you keep presenting "fear, fear, fear, doubt, fear,
i'm afraid, i hope it won't matter" - as in, you're not following the
chain of logic, you're not following the analysis, and are stuck in
"fear".

it's fine to have doubts, and it's fine to not have "all the answers".
in fact, up until i read the BoE it had never occurred to me that
"certainty" is a Really Bad Idea, but it now makes a lot of sense.

 but if for all analysis of document (1) the pointers analysed *so
far* all say "EPIC SPECTACULAR FAIL" and for document (2) the pointers
analysed *so far* all say "REASONABLE PASS", further discussion is
soomewhat superfluous until such time as there is further additional
examples or cases to add to (1) or (2).  actually, given that (1) is
so toxic in such an overwhelming number of ways it hardly warrants
*any* further presentation of examples.  that just leaves (2) for
which further examples and/or cases would prove to be useful to
analyse, to ensure that they pass.

 unit tests, in other words.

l.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:

> We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see.

 no, i will not be waiting and seeing.   there is absolutely no
contest.  CoCs are, from the comprehensive analysis that i've done,
extremely dangerous and toxic documents.  i was not joking when i said
that each of the flaws in the concept of a CoC is so fundamental as to
*on their own* place them well beyond the possibility of deployment.
that i could find *six* such fundamental and fatal flaws makes a CoC
almost a joke.

> It hopefully will not ever matter.

 it will not ever matter.

>  I fear taking away too much of your time
> when you have more urgent things to do.
>
> But I am still unconvinced; let me list the points of disagreement
> and/or possible misunderstandings:
>
> possible misunderstanding:
> A code of conduct is – unlike the bill of ethics – not even meant to be
> complete and *not* intended as a replacement for the bill of ethics. It
> is more like when there is precedent for a decision so when the
> circumstances are the same, a decision is simple and no discussion is
> needed. (Yes, some communities use the CoC for more than a list of
> uncontroversial statements; this is not what I am asking for.)
>
> possible misunderstanding:
> Yes, a code of conduct is not a panacea; there will still be bad people
> and there will still be trolls. It is only meant to help in *some* cases.

 then it is completely useless.  if it doesn't cover *all* cases, it's
utterly and completely useless.  it's like placing a series of gates
(with no walls) around your stash of gold.  now expand that to
multi-dimensional space.


> possible misunderstanding:
> A code of conduct just (for the issues it covers) makes clear who is in
> the wrong. A punishment need not be specified and need not be harsh.

 declaring that someone is "in the wrong" even before the analyisis
has been done *is* itself wrong.  what if it turns out, especially as
has happened with Julian Assange and with the Tor group that the
accusations - the "victims" - were outright liars, involved in
entrapment?

 having a code of conduct paints a huge target on a project, saying
"here's how you are GUARANTEED to disrupt this project" by having a
comprehensive and detailed list to work from, where you *know* that
they're going to treat the "victim" as being "in the right" no matter
what.

 a code of conduct is a knee-jerk "no thought, analysis or compassion
required" reaction, florian.  they're DANGEROUS documents.


> disagreement:
> Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad
> things.

 oh yes it does.  you've probably never experienced that, but i have.
to give you an example: have you heard about when Mother Theresa was
invited to a "War Rally"?  do you know what her response was?   she
said, "no thanks but if you invite me to a PEACE Rally i'll be
there".

 in other words, when you start talking about PROTESTING -ISMs, guess
what happens?  up pops aaal the people who want an opportunity to
PROTEST -ISMs.

 so NO.  there will be NO INVITATION TO ATTACK placed on ANY project
associated with EOMA.


> disagreement:
> More importantly, when it comes to harassment, the harassment is always
> inappropriate no matter what the victim of the harassment did. Often
> victims don’t make a legitimate complaint because they fear victim
> blaming. By victim I mean the victim of a concrete act (with “T.L.A.C.
> reduced”), not that the person is always a victim.

 please research the concept "victim mentality" more thoroughly.

l.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

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)
>  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
> conduct"!
> 
>  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
> message).
> 

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".
> 
> l.
> 
> ___
> 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
> 


___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/20/2016 11:58 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>  wrote:
 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!
> 

I agree. Your strict, more literal definition of anarchy can exist
within limits. Some might call a more complete (political) system with
“voluntary” hierarchies an anarchy too even though it is not truly
without leaders, but that sense is not literal.

 More
 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" :)
> 
> 

OK, I hope there will never be disputes about whether a …ist joke really
was so unethical.

>> 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. If an
appeal to wallets works then only with a shift in peoples’ priorities. I
don’t know though.

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Russell Hyer  wrote:
> Looks like http://www.divergent3d.com is the right URL (though
> slightly off topic for EOMA68, still probably worth an investment, a
> portable car chassis! The video is pretty amazing)

 fricking awesome more like.

 a 750 HP supercar weighing in at only 600kg because the chassis
weighs only 30kg.

 no it is actually partially relevant because of the relation to 3D
printing.  i've been tracking what kevin's up to and am investigating
how to get a SLS 3D printer made up (as i might need it for the hinges
on the laptop and/or making up an entire aluminium variant of the
casework).

 i might as well have some cross-over between the planned projects,
basically, if i'm going to be tackling both (one after the other), use
the tools from one as a boot-strap to make the other project easier.

l.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:

>  no it is actually partially relevant because of the relation to 3D
> printing.  i've been tracking what kevin's up to and am investigating
> how to get a SLS 3D printer made up (as i might need it for the hinges
> on the laptop and/or making up an entire aluminium variant of the
> casework).

  or to SLS 3D-print the molds which are then used for
injection-molding...  blah blah... :)

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:

> You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
> me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat.

 h 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!


>>> More
>>> 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 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Russell Hyer]

Looks like http://www.divergent3d.com is the right URL (though
slightly off topic for EOMA68, still probably worth an investment, a
portable car chassis! The video is pretty amazing)

Russell

On 20 September 2016 at 09:30, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>>  wrote:
>>> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
>>> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
>>> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
>>> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
>>> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.
>>
>>  don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!
>>
>
> India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which
> is why I said so. It was not the best wording.
>
>>> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic
>>
>>  stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
>> or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
>> "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".
>>
>>
>>> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
>>> similar consequences.
>>
>>  i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
>> language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
>> usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".
>>
>>  the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
>> be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
>> discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
>> decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
>> anybody i like that gets in my way".
>>
>
> Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.
>
>>  the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
>> it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
>> measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical" or
>> not ethical... in terms that are black and white.
>>
>>  that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".
>>
>>
>>> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.
>>
>>  ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
>> impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
>> responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
>> that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
>> exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
>> definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.
>>
>>  *by definition*.
>>
>
> You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
> me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. 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.
>
>>> More
>>> 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. Now, if you don’t
> want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.
>
>>> 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
>> say.
>>
>>  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 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>  wrote:
>> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
>> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
>> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
>> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
>> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.
> 
>  don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!
> 

India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which
is why I said so. It was not the best wording.

>> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic
> 
>  stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
> or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
> "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".
> 
> 
>> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
>> similar consequences.
> 
>  i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
> language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
> usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".
> 
>  the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
> be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
> discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
> decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
> anybody i like that gets in my way".
> 

Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.

>  the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
> it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
> measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical" or
> not ethical... in terms that are black and white.
> 
>  that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".
> 
> 
>> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.
> 
>  ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
> impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
> responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
> that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
> exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
> definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.
> 
>  *by definition*.
> 

You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. 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.

>> More
>> 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. Now, if you don’t
want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.

>> 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
> say.
> 
>  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... 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:
> On 09/18/2016 11:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>>  wrote:
>>> There also are duties, yes. I agree that rights are not enough. One can
>>> argue though that duties follow from the rights.
>>
>>  taking just the bill of ethics section on "certainty", if you define
>> things in terms of "certain duties" you've already failed.  if you are
>> *certain* that duties will help fulfil a goal, you've moved into
>> static bureaucracy without even realising it... and are thus moving
>> automatically and subconsciously into being *unable* to react to
>> changing circumstances, and thus, by definition, *will* be unable to
>> fulfil the goal.
>>
>>  entropy has to be fought, basically.  now, that's not to be confused
>> with "duty" in the indian / ayurvedic context, which is best phrased
>> as "doing your duty" i.e. "act with integrity".  that's *completely*
>> different.
>>
>>  ... but if you're referring to "dividing a goal up into fixed duties"
>> that to me is an *automatic* way to fail.
>>
>
> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.

 don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!

 no, it's a totally different meaning of the word "duty" in the vedic
context (which has nothing to do with religion).  "duty" in the vedic
context is more akin to "fulfilment of responsibility as associated
with roles".  it's *absolutely nothing* to do with "rights"

> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic

 stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
"rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".


> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
> similar consequences.

 i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".

 the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
anybody i like that gets in my way".

 the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical" or
not ethical... in terms that are black and white.

 that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".


> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.

 ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.

 *by definition*.



> 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.


> It
> may be more clear to call it organization.
>
>>  words like "policy" and "rights" and "duties" and "democracy" and
>> "hierarchy" - these are all "sleepwalking" words that have countless
>> examples showing us how badly and how drastically they're failing us.
>> i do have to hand over control of the EOMA initiative to a responsible
>> group at some point in the next ten years, but it will *not* be to a
>> group that basically sleepwalks the EOMA initiative into oblivion.
>>
>
> Yes, they often go wrong. Disregarding them often goes wrong too. It
> depends on the implementation. I don’t want to throw the baby out with
> the bathwater and say that rights *cannot* work as well as ideals.


> More
> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:01 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:
> 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.

 i didn't notice :)

> Yes, the Bill
> of Ethics is not rights-based. I don’t think a rights-based approach is
> doomed to failure though.

 bob demonstrated the difference at porcfest2016 - bear in mind that
he's 78 years old - in the most hilarious way that i've ever seen
anyone do, let alone someone who's mild-mannered, quietly and
logically well-spoken as well as being so frickin old.  bear in mind
this is in front of an audience of 200 people... :)  he opened his
mouth and eyes wide, leaned his head back and skywards, and didn't say
a single word. what he was illustrating was "someone standing there,
dumb as anything, waiting for a great big tit to be placed in their
mouth so they could suck on it".

 it was the funniest thing i've seen in a long, long time.

 anything that's "rights-based" is laden with the implicit and
dangerous expectation (and associated abdication of responsibility)
that *someone else* will provide for all your needs (defined clearly
as "your rights"), or, even worse, that you are ENTITLED to either
demand or even worse than demanding just merely TAKE what is declared
and laid out in whatever document uses the word "rights".

 unfortunately, "rights" have been "fought for" for so long that it's
become a form of indoctrination, rarely if ever challenged.


>>  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.

 someone who *cannot* derive (or phrase) their complaint in terms of
how *even their complaints* will benefit the goal is not someone that
i seek to be on the team associated with the EOMA initiatives.

 the *only* thing i will ever wish to hear - if there is a complaint -
is: "i wish to make a complaint!  you are not fulfilling the
objectives of the EOMA initiative!"

 anything other than that *will* be assessed as to whether responding
to it is going to hinder or help the EOMA initiative.

 did i make it clear that i am quite pathological about goals?  i'm
not sure if i said it clearly enough for it to be believed.

> Low-level ethics also
> run the risk of having multiple interpretations.

 good!!   that's called "creativity"!!

l.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:34 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:
> On 09/17/2016 11:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>>  wrote:
>>> It directly references skin color, religion etc. and
>>> the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective
>>> harm. The bill of rights is against harm.
>>
>>  not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth,
>> creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same
>> underlying concept).  that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".
>>
>>  to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth
>> when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset?  can that
>> be called "harm"? (it can).  thus, telling someone the truth may
>> actually cause them "harm"!
>>
>
> Well, yes. I oversimplified.

 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.

>>> My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real
>>> arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps
>>> not.
>>
>>  you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong
>> with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.
>>
>
> It is quite possible that esr’s comment was an honest comment meant to
> be constructive instead of a deliberate misunderstanding. However, esr’s
> arguments may be an appropriate response to a call for affirmative
> action / positive discrimination, but no such call was made by the
> “Social Justice Warriors”.
>
>> anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct",
>> *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something
>> that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of
>> achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative.  if
>> the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of
>> -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical.
>>
>> however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism
>> neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to
>> not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and
>> become bogged down in defining them.  in quantum mechanics tunneling
>> terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum
>> well.  only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can
>> it escape the trap.
>>
>>
>
> When there are many administrators/moderators/employees/… who can make
> decisions, having a clear policy protects decision makers from
> accusations of not being impartial and makes it easier to complain about
> bad decisions.

 there's a prior step here which is critically important to have even
before adding in "complaints procedures".  adding in any kind of "code
of conduct" on top of something that is fundamentally broken (or
hasn't been made clear) is asking for trouble.

 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.

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



> Yes, defining -isms is hard, therefore the best practice appears to be
> to adopt a code of conduct written and tested by others with more
> experience, see [2].

 no. fundamentally disagree.  finding a communications and
decision-making process that is good enough such that it *doesn't
need* a code of conduct (because it's a completely -ism-agnostic part
*of* the process) is i feel more important than trying to band-aid
broken decision-making processes.

l.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/17/2016 11:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>  wrote:
>> It directly references skin color, religion etc. and
>> the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective
>> harm. The bill of rights is against harm.
> 
>  not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth,
> creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same
> underlying concept).  that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".
> 
>  to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth
> when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset?  can that
> be called "harm"? (it can).  thus, telling someone the truth may
> actually cause them "harm"!
> 

Well, yes. I oversimplified.

>> My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real
>> arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps
>> not.
> 
>  you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong
> with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.
> 

It is quite possible that esr’s comment was an honest comment meant to
be constructive instead of a deliberate misunderstanding. However, esr’s
arguments may be an appropriate response to a call for affirmative
action / positive discrimination, but no such call was made by the
“Social Justice Warriors”.

> anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct",
> *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something
> that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of
> achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative.  if
> the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of
> -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical.
> 
> however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism
> neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to
> not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and
> become bogged down in defining them.  in quantum mechanics tunneling
> terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum
> well.  only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can
> it escape the trap.
> 
> 

When there are many administrators/moderators/employees/… who can make
decisions, having a clear policy protects decision makers from
accusations of not being impartial and makes it easier to complain about
bad decisions.

Yes, defining -isms is hard, therefore the best practice appears to be
to adopt a code of conduct written and tested by others with more
experience, see [2].

As I said, I don’t think adopting a CoC is useful if there is a single
decision maker though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla''
 wrote:
> On 2016-09-17 at 09:05:00 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>  correct.  one of the things that i love about free software is that
>> most people are completely anonymous behind a wall of plain text.  we
>> don't give a fuck about people's gender, or race, or age, or size, or
>> any other fuckwit politically bullshit-orientated delusionary
>> attitudes.
>
> this, sadly, it not true, except maybe for a few very specific cases.
> [..]

elena what you wrote is extremely insightful and very much
appreciated, as well as correcting some of the assumptions i made.
thank you.

l.

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:
> On 09/17/2016 10:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>>  wrote:
>>> On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper
  wrote:
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
> and
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

 i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that
 esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics.  my feeling is
 that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is
 not.

 l.

>>>
>>> They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one
>>> may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that
>>> sexism/racism/… is OK
>>
>>  only if you choose to *make* such a deliberate misunderstanding.
>>
>>> (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of
>>> affected people, see bill of rights 3.03).
>>
>>  if there were any mention of the words "creed" or "colour" or any
>> other deliberately exclusionary terms, you would be absolutely
>> correct.  however there is not a single term or phrase in the entire
>> document which may be construed as being *remotely* of the type that
>> you fear.
>
> I’m speaking of the esr comments in mdn’s first link (see above), not
> the bill of rights.

 oh :)

> It directly references skin color, religion etc. and
> the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective
> harm. The bill of rights is against harm.

 not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth,
creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same
underlying concept).  that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".

 to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth
when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset?  can that
be called "harm"? (it can).  thus, telling someone the truth may
actually cause them "harm"!


> My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real
> arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps
> not.

 you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong
with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.

> Yes, contributions should be judged on (some kind of) merit, but we
> should acknowledge possible biases – this is all.

 i'm inclined to quote the phrase "correlation is not causation",
here.  let's use an example.  let's say that you have an "inner city"
programme which is making an effort to introduce kids from extremely
impoverished and extremely rough backgrounds straight into linux
kernel programming.  realistically: how well do you think that would
actually go?  how well do you feel that, statistically speaking, any
one of a selection of 17-year-olds whose primary daily focus is on not
getting knifed or shot by ongoing drug-related gang warfare would
*usefully* be able to contribute to the linux kernel without first
extracting them from that environment and putting them through an
intensive 2-5 year-long crash-course in software engineering?

 so, every single one of these hypothetical inner city kids submits
his first patch and is roasted on the flames of lkml, laughs at the
total lack of danger due to them having faced down actual *real*
life-threatening danger on a daily basis, and walks away from the
programme.   then imagine that some blithering political fuckwit comes
along and says "but you're being exclusionary to inner city kids"
- well, noo... their mindset is focussed on survival, not on
programming, they haven't had *any* training in software engineering,
so surpriiise! they can't usefully contribute.

 "but you're being biased!!!" says the political fuckwit.

 whilst this is an extreme (and obvious) example, there are
unfortunately some other examples which *may* be a little less black
and white.  and you know what? regardless of whether it's
black-and-white or grey, i genuinely couldn't give a monkey's.  why?
because at every phase, at every moment, i assess "does this
conversation and/or contribution help or hinder the goal, yes or no".

 there *is* no other consideration.  not "are you my friend", not "are
you gay", not "do you have two heads, five tentacles and smell of
elderberries".  always at the heart of everything that i do, having
set this goal is: "does this conversation / contribution help achieve
the goal, yes or no".  if "no" i will decide what action to take (if
any) to mitigate its adverse effects (time / effort analysis).  if
"yes" i will encourage / engage.

this level of pathological focus on goals can be a bit hard for other
people to grasp... but that's genuinely how i operate.   it stems from
a definition of relationships (which comes 

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2016-09-17 at 09:05:00 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>  correct.  one of the things that i love about free software is that
> most people are completely anonymous behind a wall of plain text.  we
> don't give a fuck about people's gender, or race, or age, or size, or
> any other fuckwit politically bullshit-orientated delusionary
> attitudes.

this, sadly, it not true, except maybe for a few very specific cases.

Humans are extremely good at getting hints that help put people in
specific bins, and they can often do so even from just written texts:
the most obvious think is finding out people's gender from their name
(and these days working from a pseudonim that is not connected to your
legal name is much rarer than it used to be), but you can also get hints
about nationality (or at least native language, for people for whom
english is a second language) and ethnicity from the errors (in the
former case) and the non-standard usages (in the latter), and of course
people of different generations do use different expressions.

Of course these hints have an even bigger failure rate than the ones
available in-person, but they still work in enough cases that they keep
being reinforced.

One big problem with this is that it mostly happens at an instinctive
level, so people may *honestly* believe that they aren't doing any
discrimination, and that they are giving everybody the same chances.

> if you have the self belief to step forward onto a public
> mailing list and can speak with a rational and clear voice, 

and this already requires a higher effort from about half of humanity who
for centuries has been trained from a very young age that stepping
forward in public is something that they are not supposed to do.

Note that I don't believe that a free software community can do anything
to solve *this* problem, it's just something that I believe it's worth
remembering.

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
 wrote:
> On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper
>>  wrote:
>>> Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to
>>> adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0],
>>> for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?
>>
>> ok.  first thing that needs to be said: the wiki and the mailing list
>> are there as resources (run by me) whose sole purpose is to support
>> the goals of the EOMA initiative, for which (as the "Guardian of the
>> EOMA Standards") i and i alone am currently directly responsible.
>> "being nice" or "being inclusive" or "making people happy" is not a
>> direct target, or a direct or indirect measure of success, in any way,
>> as part of the responsibility of protecting the EOMA standards.
>>
>
> A code of conduct is only useful if there are multiple administrators
> who may disagree and decisions based on policy are needed. We have to
> trust Lkcl anyway.

 true *for now*...  in the future there will be more people involved.

>>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
>>> and
>>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
>>
>> i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that
>> esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics.  my feeling is
>> that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is
>> not.
>>
>> l.
>>
>
> They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one
> may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that
> sexism/racism/… is OK

 only if you choose to *make* such a deliberate misunderstanding.

> (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of
> affected people, see bill of rights 3.03).

 if there were any mention of the words "creed" or "colour" or any
other deliberately exclusionary terms, you would be absolutely
correct.  however there is not a single term or phrase in the entire
document which may be construed as being *remotely* of the type that
you fear.

 thus we can conclude that the perceived possibility of a
misunderstanding is merely that, and is not related to this document
in any way.

 remember: this document is designed to be applicable right down to
the smallest social club all the way up to Sovereign Nations.  acting
in self-defense in an *ethical* way is a really really vital part of
it.


> Accepting contributions
> regardless of gender/race/… does not mean accepting contributions
> regardless of quality.

 correct.  one of the things that i love about free software is that
most people are completely anonymous behind a wall of plain text.  we
don't give a fuck about people's gender, or race, or age, or size, or
any other fuckwit politically bullshit-orientated delusionary
attitudes.  if you have the self belief to step forward onto a public
mailing list and can speak with a rational and clear voice, chances
are that you'll do okay.

 if however you fear being victimised (for irrational or subconscious
traumatic childhood reasons or many other reasons too numerous to
list) that have absolutely nothing to do with the goal that everyone
else is focussing on, *or* if your background is sufficiently
technically lacking that you're unable to contribute usefully, chances
are high that it's not going to go well for you unless you're prepared
to overcome those fears or lack of technical knowledge in pursuit of
the goal.


> Criticism of meritocracy is mostly about
> meritocracies not being real meritocracies, e.g. by favoring the loudest
> over the silent, judging not on real merit but stereotypes, etc. (see [1]).

 bob's team's 20-year-long study shows that compared to *all* other
forms of decision-making, unanimous small groups 50-50 men and women
of between 7 and 9 people total is by far and above the most effective
means to achieve goals.  this is not a new discovery: it's a
rediscovery of something that's been shown to be highly effective
throughout human history, the more recent descriptions include the
book "The Mythical Man-Month" as well as "Agile Programming".

 anyway: you can probably tell that i don't think highly of
meritocracies.  this was one of the mistakes made by the Apache
Software Foundation with the introduction of their Charter, which
solely and exclusively required consideration of contributions based
on "technical merit".  back in 1998 or so i proposed that they
consider adding "strategic merit" to the Charter but this was not
taken up.



> I don’t think creativity is the perfect basis for ethics though.

 i do.  i instinctively get it, from my background in physics as well
as other training including some that's related to daoism, some in
christianity, and some related to the kaballah.  really long story
dating back over the last 28 years and counting.

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper
>  wrote:
>> Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to
>> adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0],
>> for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?
> 
> ok.  first thing that needs to be said: the wiki and the mailing list
> are there as resources (run by me) whose sole purpose is to support
> the goals of the EOMA initiative, for which (as the "Guardian of the
> EOMA Standards") i and i alone am currently directly responsible.
> "being nice" or "being inclusive" or "making people happy" is not a
> direct target, or a direct or indirect measure of success, in any way,
> as part of the responsibility of protecting the EOMA standards.
> 

A code of conduct is only useful if there are multiple administrators
who may disagree and decisions based on policy are needed. We have to
trust Lkcl anyway.

>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
>> and
>> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122
> 
> i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that
> esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics.  my feeling is
> that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is
> not.
> 
> l.
> 

They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one
may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that
sexism/racism/… is OK (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of
affected people, see bill of rights 3.03). Accepting contributions
regardless of gender/race/… does not mean accepting contributions
regardless of quality. Criticism of meritocracy is mostly about
meritocracies not being real meritocracies, e.g. by favoring the loudest
over the silent, judging not on real merit but stereotypes, etc. (see [1]).

I don’t think creativity is the perfect basis for ethics though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy


___
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

Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper
 wrote:
> I am still new to this community, and am more of a lurker than a
> contributor.
>
> Many of the projects I am interested in have a code of conduct of some
> kind, typically based on the Contributor Covenant[0].

 yes, they do.  i've encountered several (and some Charters) including
the ASF's Charter and others.

> However, neither the arm-netbook mailing list nor the Rhombus Tech wiki
> has one, as far as I can see.

 huh.  never occurred to me before.

> Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to
> adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0],
> for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?

ok.  first thing that needs to be said: the wiki and the mailing list
are there as resources (run by me) whose sole purpose is to support
the goals of the EOMA initiative, for which (as the "Guardian of the
EOMA Standards") i and i alone am currently directly responsible.
"being nice" or "being inclusive" or "making people happy" is not a
direct target, or a direct or indirect measure of success, in any way,
as part of the responsibility of protecting the EOMA standards.

if there is to be any deployment of a Charter, it would be based
around the goal of supporting and protecting the EOMA initiative; it
would also be based on the Bill of Ethics
https://www.titanians.org/the-bill-of-ethics/ with no other document
being authoritative over or superceding it (ever).

> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
> and
> http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that
esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics.  my feeling is
that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is
not.

l.

___
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