[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 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> On 09/18/2016 09:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>  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.
>>
>
> 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.


> Well, in a larger organization some simple complaints are easier to
> support and assess without disputes when there is a high-level policy.
> But you are not a large organization, so you don’t need one right now
> anyway.

 did you know that visa (the credit card company) became highly
successful world-wide without having a single manager anywhere across
the entire organisation?  when it was bought out it was transformed
into the hierarchical top-down bureaucratic nightmare that it now is,
but prior to that they had absolutely no management structure of any
kind.

 they operated entirely and exclusively - thousands of people across
dozens of offices - in small groups of around 7 people.

 the myth that hier-ocracy is the only way to organise is just that: a myth.

 i need to transform what i am doing into something that is more than
just me, that can scale with integrity, in a way that is *not*
susceptible to the untold damage caused by hierocracy, autocracy,
democracy and meritocracy.  the only thing that i have found so far
which fits the bill is bob's work, which he's called "organised
an-archy" i.e. "organisation in the absence of overarching authority".

 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.

 sorry if this comes as a bit of a shock, florian.  there's an article
on slashdot just come out "why aren't techies improving the world"?
https://ask.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/0152208/ask-slashdot-why-arent-techies-improving-the-world
 i didn't respond here (i am still dealing with flu, have been for 3-4
days now), and the comments got too large for it to be worthwhile
responding.

have you seen what elon musk is up to?  have you analysed his
behaviour at all?  he's advocating that we convert all our cars to
electric (when there isn't enough lithium, neodymium or copper on the
planet to support a *fraction* of the conversions), which tells you
that he has no idea or consideration of the environmental damage of
what he's advocating.  he's advocating that we "go to mars" and is
setting up Space-X as a way to kickstart that.  put these two things
together, and we can logically deduce that he's basically "given up"
on the people of planet earth.

all that power - all that money... and he's treating humans like test
subjects for technology (and killing them on a regular basis with
these "auto-pilot" systems aka "driver assist").

one of the goals that i have is to undo some of the damage caused by
Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Samsung and Apple - as
pawns of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others - before it's
too late.

do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which
allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm)
would be a good idea?  because i certainly don't!

this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start,
but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i
am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible
nightmare scenario.

l.