[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)
<pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> 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.