[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 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> 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.

 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).

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.