[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> wrote:

>>  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.

 i see that you're still concerned, which means that you don't follow.
first thing that has to be made absolutely clear: your concern is
completely unfounded.  but let's not leave it at that: let's walk
through a few scenarios where you will be able to *see* that your
concern is totally and completely unfounded.

 (1) if there are people whose intent is to create disruption by
making "-ist" jokes (i.e. they are driven by ego, self-promotion, or
are simply psychologically unwell), and those people are also acting
in an official capacity as representatives of EOMA68 (Guardians plural
or Ambassadors of the EOMA68 Standard and its goals), then those
people can be said to have *two* goals, can't they?

 there is therefore a "conflict of interest" between their role as
"seeking to promote their personal and probably egoistic and
psychologically unbalanced personal agenda by making '-ist' jokes" and
"guardian or ambassador of the EOMA68 standard", isn't there?

 *therefore* there would be a case, under the Bill of Ethics, to
reprimand their behaviour and to act immediately and decisively to
curtail their behaviour WITHOUT REQUIRING A CODE OF CONDUCT TO DO SO.

 (2) specialisation of the above: if there are people who work in
SECRET and make "-ist" jokes IN SECRET amongst themselves in a way
that they IN SECRET laugh at and find to be hilarious and are not
offended by at all IN SECRET, whilst at the same time in whose outward
appearance (external communications) they act flawlessly and perfectly
in their role as "Guardian(s) or Ambassador(s) of the EOMA68 standard
and its goals", there is nothing that can be said or done to criticise
them as they are in fact fulfilling their primary role.

 HOWEVER, if their SECRET personal conversations were to be made
accidentally made public, now we have a problem, and they will need to
be dealt with.  once again, however: there is NO NEED FOR A CODE OF
CONDUCT.  it could be said that it would be nice if those people
didn't *have* such secret conversations in which they engaged in
behaviour which *IF* made public could bring their primary role into
disrepute, but that's entirely in retrospect: they should have thought
about that beforehand, and we just have to clean up the mess
afterwards (just like you would any other public dog's dinner
political mess where a politician is discovered to have business
interests or private affairs that cause him to have to resign, or as
happens when a celebrity's personal and totally private
sexually-explicit photos are dumped onto the internet).


 we can probably think of some other scenarios, but they will be
similarly logical to the above: in each and every one, with the goal
*being* the absolute priority, and the Bill of Ethics *being* the
means by which actions are considered, then, in a very specific,
targetted and indirect way i believe that you will find that there is
absolutely no need for a "Code of Conduct" to even be discussed.

 which brings me on to one final point: discussing and fearing that a
code of conduct is *required* when i believe i've logically
demonstrated that the Bill of Ethics is sufficient (or, more
specifically, "has a very high probability of being sufficient") is
itself absorbing time and effort which is distracting from fulfilling
the EOMA68 goal.  now, i've been deliberately very patient, and
covered this in a way which i think you'll understand is a hell of a
lot better than esr's recommended approach, "ah: i see that you are
using a Type D Kafka-esque Trap. fuck off", because the circumstances
and intent are entirely different.

 in the examples that esr gives, he's advising on how to deal with
people who make specific instances of attacks of the type that he's
identified.  if you recall, the "trials" are basically accusations
where if you say yes you're fucked, and if you say no you're fucked.
such attacks are *deliberately designed* as a form of slander and/or
entrapment.

 however, florian, in raising this topic the circumstances are
slightly different: you're trying to help.  you're suggesting a means
by which such attacks (internal or external) may be *avoided*, and you
*believe* that a "code of conduct" is a good way to do that.

 in being patient and explaining why i fundamentally disagree with the
need for a "code of conduct" - because any "code" of "conduct" may be
*derived* from the Bill of Ethics - i trust that you (or anyone else
for that matter) will be able to come up with specific
counter-examples that *specifically* demonstrate that the Bill of
Ethics is insufficient, but if not, i am going to have to ask that
this topic be brought to a close, as it's really, really taking up far
too much time.  remember, this is a big list, now, and there are
several thousand more people on the crowd-funding list who will be
wondering why so much time is being taken up with this discussion
instead of having their promises fulfilled.



>>> 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.

 geodesic structural analysis and crash-test simulations can be done
to show otherwise, followed by actual real-world tests.  typically in
such vehicles you use the front wheels as part of the crumple-zone,
providing guides near the front occupants legs that allow the wheels
to be shunted sideways as they are crushed.   many companies that
create Category L7e (heavy quadricycle) vehicles actually put their
vehicles through crash-test certification and pass with flying
colours, even though they are not legally required to do so.  the
burden of responsibility therefore falls on the driver to make an
informed decision and to drive accordingly.

 also it turns out that Category L7e vehicles, by way of being such
reduced acceleration and size and having a completely different engine
sound (less sound deadening material but such a small engine that it's
not actually needed) are *immediately* identified by other drivers as
"requires a little bit more care".  thus not only does the driver of a
Category L7e vehicle drive with a bit more care, but *surrounding*
drivers also drive with a bit more care.  the end result is,
paradoxically, that there are far less accidents involving Category
L7e vehicles than there are with other vehicles.

l.