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@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.
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).
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.” 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.
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.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk