--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@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.