[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 3:12 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflorian at pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> On 09/22/2016 01:39 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> ---
>> 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.
>
> “I wanted a CoC to make sure we can avoid disputes, so there’s no point
> in having *a dispute* now.” is what I meant.

 ahh :)  well, from what i see so far, there's no "dispute" - there is
only valuable discussion which helps refine and clarify.

> If there is a code of conduct, the dispute resolution process looks like
> this: “What you did is *exactly* what is forbidden by the code of
> conduct, so you are wrong. Case closed.”

 ... which means (implies) a number things, both of which are
sufficiently serious problems such that i fundamentally disagree that
a CoC should be present:

 (1) there has to *be* a set and pre-thought-out definition -
associated directly with the project - in list form - some of the most
horrible, aggressive and generally obnoxious forms of behaviour ever
known to man.  to even have such a list of "don't"s has been
demonstrated time and time again to be an extremely bad idea.

 (2) the list *is* a set list... it can only be incomplete, thus
defeating the object and purpose of *having* the list in the first
place.

 (3) the list is an open invitation to attack the purpose of the
project by way of those definitions (that's if people read it in the
first place)

 (4) as mentioned in the previous message, anyone who *doesn't* read
it will just attack anyway.

 thus we can see that having any "list" of "conduct which does not
conform to the quotes code quotes" is not just useless, it's *far
worse* than useless, it actually brings down the entire tone of the
project.

 have you ever heard of "victim mentality"?  it's where people FEAR
something... and thus INVITE people to attack them on precisely that
which they fear.  examples include people walking down the street
looking afraid, clutching their handbag: any mugger in the vicinity
will instantly go "ah ha!  someone has something to hide that they
fear losing!  it must be valuable!  ATTACK!!!!"

 a "Code of Conduct" is therefore an OPEN INVITATION for people to attack.

 so i'll say it again, so it's really really clear: there will be *NO*
"code of conduct" deployed for ANYTHING related to EOMA68 over which i
have any direct responsibility and/or authority.

> With just the bill of ethics,
> you may have a discussion on whether it really causes a distraction or
> whether the victim should just accept it instead of making a fuss. Now
> that discussion may have the same result, but it is more demanding on
> everyone, especially the victim.

 are you talking about the ethical violator considering themselves to
be the "victim"?  or are you referring to the people whom the ethical
violator may have adversely affected (by having had their Truth, Love,
Awareness or Creativity reduced by the ethical violator)?

 if you are referring to the person (or persons) who have had T.L.A.C.
reduced (in direct violation of the Bill of Ethics) as "victims", then
firstly that's not an appropriate term to use (in the context of the
Bill of Ethics), but secondly even if you did consider them to *be*
victims, if they make a stand and say "scuse me but there's been a
reduction in my T.L.A.C and it's relevant to this project" then
immediately it becomes possible to take appropriate action.

 when we think of people as "victims", what it actually means is -
don't be too shocked by this, it's hinted at above by the well-known
phrase "Victim Mentality" - that they *invited* that attack.  it is
within *their* mind-set to *be* victimISED.

 this may sound really really shocking and cruel, but it's not.  i
won't go into detail on a spiritual level or make any references which
i would normally do in private conversations as it might be totally
misunderstood, so we'll keep it to the "logical and rational".

 now, does this mean that just because someone has within their
mindset a feeling of "victimisation" that people *should* attack them?
 of course not!  but, people being what they are, opposites attract:
they often cannot help themselves, so they ATTACK.

 can we BLAME both parties for the resultant mess? NO we cannot.

 can we HELP both parties?  mmm.... maybe.  that's down to them.

 should we weigh the pro's and con's of getting both the "victim" and
the "attacker" to on the one hand stop being a "victim" and likewise
the other to stop being an "attacker"?  yes we should.

 why should we do that assessment (even before and even over-and-above
assessing exactly what it was that they did)

 because it may turn out that, even though both parties
(independently) may have some extremely valuable contribution to the
set goal, *BOTH* parties (independently) may feel that their goal "use
this project as an excuse to be a victim" and "use this project as an
excuse to be an attacker" is *MORE* important (independently) to them
than the goal that they declared, contractually, to be a part of.

(in other words, each of the parties CONTRACTUALLY failed - when they
signed up to the "Bill of Ethics" to comprehend the nature of what it
was that they were signing and agreeing to.  the goal IS the goal.
there is NO other goal.  and extending the goal to include "personal
bitch-fest -ism related attacks on other people" *AUTOMATICALLY*
constitutes violation of the contract by way of endeavouring to expand
the goal without the consent of the other signatories to the
contract).

 thus, if one, other, or BOTH parties - regardless of "quotes who did
what quotes" refuses to apologise and/or adapt and/or prioritise the
goal *over and above* whatever grievances they might have, we might
end up activating the clause in the Bill of Ethics which excludes
(ejects) one, the other, or BOTH parties!

 obviously, the favourable outcome is that they both say "oops, sorry,
won't do it again, will focus properly on the goal now, we both
promise"...

 now.  do you know of *any* "Code of Conduct" that can be this
flexible, this forgiving, and yet be so basic and fundamental, all at
the same time?  because i certainly don't!  the "Code of Conduct" that
you referred to is a *horrible* document when viewed in light of the
above!  it *reaffirms* the status of the person being attacked,
reinforces that status, does *nothing* to help them out of the mindset
which caused them to be attacked, it does *nothing* for the attacker,
aside from ostracising them from one group, where they will quite
likely just find another, and many many other flaws which to be honest
i just want to stop enumerating them because even just one of those
flaws is enough for me to say ABSOLUTELY NOT: the fact that i can,
after all this analysis, find not one but SIX separate distinct
fundamentally fatal and completely intolerable flaws...

 so. can you now *finally* see how completely fundamentally flawed any
kind of "Code of Conduct" document is going to be, compared to any
document similar to the "Bill of Ethics"?

 a similar analogy would be, in terms of SQL-related design, is that
Code of Conduct Documents are "2nd Normalised Form" (look it up if
you're not familiar with that).  the Bill of Ethics is "3rd Normalised
Form", and the definition of an "Ethical Act" would be "4th Normalised
Form".

 i operate at the level of "3rd to 4th normalise form".  where i need
"2nd normalised form" i typically write code generators.  however i
have found that every single automated code-generator has problems
(many of them fundamental and inherently flawed at the design level),
and i have had to resort to using weakly-typed languages (python for
example) and to go to 3rd normalised form that performs on-demand SQL
(or other code) generation.

 interestingly i very very rarely program at the 4th normalised form
level: it's too much hassle :)

l.