[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)
<pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> 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)
>> <pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> 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
>>>> <sampablokuper at posteo.net> 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 from the dao).
"relationships are about shared goals.  if you share a goal, you
*have* a relationship".  put another way: if you do not share a goal
with someone (whatever that may be) there is *no need* - at all - to
"relate" to them.  *in any way*.  you can dress that up in terms of
energy-resonance with quantum mechanics equations if you like, and it
boils down to exactly the same thing in the end.

 the "traditional" usage of the word "relationship" is often that it
is defined in terms of itself... or that the relationship *is* the
goal (!).  business "relationship".  personal "relationship".  these
definitions get thoroughly in the way.  i often hear people try to
dismiss the above definition, on the basis that the word
"relationship" is in and of itself *the* main thing.  they try to tell
me that it is wrong, that relationships cannot be defined as "being
about sharing a goal", quoting "personal relationship" as a perfect
example.  i have to gently tell such people that even an abusive
relationship is one where the goal is "abuse the other person".  they
tend to get quite upset about that.

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.


>>  if the connection between ethics and creativity isn't clear, re-read
>> the definitions.   bob uses the terms "truth, love, awareness and
>> creativity" as synonyms for the same underlying concept, on the basis
>> that if you reduce any one of them, you reduce all the others as well.
>>
>
> I did not understand that. It makes sense then, even though my
> terminology is different.

 i must apologise for not being able to explain.  it's something that
bob studied for 30 years to be able to explain easily and simply.
i've "recognised" it - known what he's getting at for all of my life,
but have been unable to properly verbalise (express it to others).
which is why, when i met bob a few months back i jumped at the
opportunity to talk with him personally, because i could see that he
was able to express something that i could not.  i'm still learning.

l.