On 09/18/2016 03:37 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
words being what they are, it's a critical, critical difference which indicates a fundamental and key difference between this document and any others that anyone (including myself) is ever likely to have encountered. up until two months ago i *genuinely* thought that the "Bill of Rights" was a really good document. then i heard of the "Bill of Ethics" and realised - only by comparison - that anything labelled "Rights" is downright dangerous.
Oh boy, I said Bill of Rights when I meant Bill of Ethics. Yes, the Bill of Ethics is not rights-based. I don’t think a rights-based approach is doomed to failure though.
so *even before* getting into that sort of thing, a clear communications and decision-making policy has to be put in place. honestly, if someone with 30 years of research into this field says that they found unanimous small groups between 7 and 9 in side of 50-50 men and women was *the* most effective way to get decisions made, i'm inclined to trust that over and above anything else.
I’m not so sure, but an environment that is hostile to some is probably not a good one anyway.
and i can also see that the Bill of Ethics is sufficiently "low-level" that a "code of conduct" is not even necessary.
We want a high-level document (when multiple decision makers are involved). Someone who wants to complain of bad behavior should not need to derive their complaint from low-level ethics. Low-level ethics also run the risk of having multiple interpretations.