[Arm-netbook] Ethics, eco-conscious, and treating your backers with respect

[Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo]

2017-12-29 14:53 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton:
>---
>crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
>[...]
>
>On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Julie Marchant <onpon4 at riseup.net> wrote:
>> Ugh, did it again. Sorry.
>>
>> On 2017年12月28日 04:13, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>> it's
>>> too close to the exploitation i've witnessed - and my friend has
>>> recently uncovered clear and blatant evidence of.  mining however is
>>> *completely* different, not least because it, in no way, *actually*
>>> involves actual cash, and it is not directly related to "exchange
>>> rates" or the trading of currencies, at all.
>>
>> So, you're somehow ethically opposed to trading Bitcoin for money, and
>> yet not ethically opposed to trading it for goods? That doesn't make a
>> lick of sense, Luke.

+1 to Julie, and to the other people who expressed doubts about the
wisdom to go down this path.

If anything, the whole coin-mining rush and the resources devoted to it
(not only computational, also human resources and the amount of
press/attention that is given to it) compared to many of the other world
problems, look to me anything but sensible, and much less
"eco-conscious" or "ethical".

So I am not going to start arguing about this, I hope to not reply to
any other email in the thread, but just to express that I also feel that
this new adventure is quite far from the general idea of the EOMA (which
I backed as part of the campaign and also a few years before that), and
the campaign, which I contributed to echo in many places while it ran,
which now I kind of regret after the latest developments.


>> Just one question: is canceling support for the CrowdSupply campaign an
>> option if you go through with this?
> [...]
> i'm already going through with it - it was already in motion.
>
> ok, the answer's conditional.
>
> (1) if you're part of the 2nd batch you can at any time send
>crowdsupply your order number, cc me, and i'll authorise a refund.
>they have all the funds, stored in their bank account(s).  also, you
>don't need to read further, below.
>
> (2) if you're part of the 1st batch, that's much more complex: as
>i've outlined many many times, the reputation of the factory is harmed
>if the suppliers do not get the orders that they've been promised; the
>factory workers are harmed because they don't the get jobs that
>they've been promised; it also does harm to the project if the funds
>are below the critical threshold (that they're already at) for buying
>components and much more.  i therefore have to do an analysis to see
>if there is any harm that you intend to do to the project.  it would
>help in my assessment if you make it absolutely clear if it is your
>intention to *actively* do harm to the project.

I find that the language that you use is completely inappropriate to
treat backers of the idea.

Julie and others, including me, *do not actively intend to harm the EOMA
project*.  They, or we, just don't feel comfortable with the turn of the
story that you are going to make, or just made, so they lost confidence
that it's a project worth backing.  At most we want to *actively* remove
us from the equation, not *actively* harm EOMA.

It's you who is *actively* changing the rules and making EOMA
conditional on coin-mining operations rather than rethink the project
and deliver less than promised, or do it in a different way, or run
another campaign.

These suggestions were given by people in this thread, perhaps not the
best, perhaps not enough, but that's what many people in the "EOMA
community" expressed.  If you disregard these opinions, well, it's you
who is going to be the only actor *actively* harming or *boosting* the
project, whatever end result is going to be.

It's maybe nobody's fault that things went this way, but in any case,
it's not Julie's fault in any way what happend so far and that the money
is insufficient now, so treating backers in this appalling way is not
OK.


> if you are part of the first batch, do you intend to do *active* harm
>to this project if your request for a refund is not met; please kindly
>answer yes or no, if yes, please outline the extent of the damage that
>would be your intent to carry out, if any,, and i will be able to make
>a fully-informed assessment.

If you go down this path, not only linking EOMA to the success of a
coin-mining operation, but blaming people who backed and trusted you, I
don't think that Julie is the only person who is going to ask for a
refund.


> sorry for being blunt, i feel it's best to be absolutely up-front
>about these things.

Ditto.


-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo at gmail.com>