I have indeed shown my point of view without explaining the exact reasons (I said it caused trouble and I agree that it is a very vague anwser) I redirect you to these links that resumes with better words my point of view.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 and http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

Good reading

Le 17/09/2016 03:31, Muhammed Adel Afzal a écrit :

I noticed that you (mdn and Sam) posted conclusions rather than interests (or reasons). Why do you think a code would be bad or good?

Adel

----- Original Message ----- From: "mdn" bernardlprf@openmailbox.org To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 4:22:38 PM Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

I am just a lurker a seeker of knowledge on this email list and tend to stay out of discussions knowing that I don't have has much knowledge has the people discussing here.

But I can't stay an say nothing on this subject I speak for Myself and only Myself and my response is no, I don't want that

Your heart may be in the right place but we all know where this leads. COC like the Contributor Covenant have made enough trouble and it has to stop.

Le 16/09/2016 22:06, Sam Pablo Kuper a écrit :

...

I am still new to this community, and am more of a lurker than a contributor.

Many of the projects I am interested in have a code of conduct of some kind, typically based on the Contributor Covenant[0]. If they are well-written and proportionate, I find them welcoming. And I, correspondingly, welcome them. Not because anything especially terrible has happened to me in such communities, but because it would send a clear message that nothing terrible should happen to me or to anyone else as a result of participating, and that were such to happen, it would not be tolerated lightly.

I searched this mailing list's archive, the Rhombus Tech wiki, and the elinux.org wiki, for evidence of a code of conduct.

Happily, the elinux.org wiki does effectively have a code of conduct:

http://elinux.org/ELinuxWiki:Policies_%26_Guidelines

However, neither the arm-netbook mailing list nor the Rhombus Tech wiki has one, as far as I can see.

Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0], for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?

I would welcome concise responses in this thread, ideally formatted along the lines:

"""

• arm-netbook list: yes.

• Rhombus Tech wiki: yes.

"""

I would, personally, *not* welcome receiving supporting arguments for your position, for the following reasons:

• I am much more interested in the community's view on whether or not

adopting such a code would be a good idea, than its view on why it would or would not be a good idea.

• In discussions of the merits of such codes of conduct, both supporters

and detractors typically raise pros or cons that have already been raised, by them or others, in at least one of the many such discussions that have occurred other communities. That is, the arguments on both sides of the debate are quite well-worn. I would prefer anyone interested in such pros and cons to look them up (e.g. search the Web) than to expend effort re-hashing them here.

• Such discussions of rationale often become contentious. The last thing

I want is to cause acrimony on the list.

I hope that affirmative replies will predominate. If they do, then I will at some point in the future probably add a draft Code of Conduct page to the Rhombus Tech wiki and/or ask Luke to add one to the mailing list web page[1], as appropriate (unless someone else acts first). If they don't, or if nobody replies, then I'll quietly let this go.

Thanks :)

spk

[0] http://contributor-covenant.org/ [1] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

---

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

---

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

---

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

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:

...

Does anyone else here think it would be, on balance, a good idea to adopt a Code of Conduct, perhaps based on the Contributor Covenant[0], for some combination of: this mailing list; the Rhombus Tech wiki?

ok. first thing that needs to be said: the wiki and the mailing list are there as resources (run by me) whose sole purpose is to support the goals of the EOMA initiative, for which (as the "Guardian of the EOMA Standards") i and i alone am currently directly responsible. "being nice" or "being inclusive" or "making people happy" is not a direct target, or a direct or indirect measure of success, in any way, as part of the responsibility of protecting the EOMA standards.

A code of conduct is only useful if there are multiple administrators who may disagree and decisions based on policy are needed. We have to trust Lkcl anyway.

true *for now*... in the future there will be more people involved.

...

...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 and http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics. my feeling is that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is not.

l.

They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that sexism/racism/… is OK

only if you choose to *make* such a deliberate misunderstanding.

(limiting the contributions and thus creativity of affected people, see bill of rights 3.03).

if there were any mention of the words "creed" or "colour" or any other deliberately exclusionary terms, you would be absolutely correct. however there is not a single term or phrase in the entire document which may be construed as being *remotely* of the type that you fear.

thus we can conclude that the perceived possibility of a misunderstanding is merely that, and is not related to this document in any way.

remember: this document is designed to be applicable right down to the smallest social club all the way up to Sovereign Nations. acting in self-defense in an *ethical* way is a really really vital part of it.

Accepting contributions regardless of gender/race/… does not mean accepting contributions regardless of quality.

correct. one of the things that i love about free software is that most people are completely anonymous behind a wall of plain text. we don't give a fuck about people's gender, or race, or age, or size, or any other fuckwit politically bullshit-orientated delusionary attitudes. if you have the self belief to step forward onto a public mailing list and can speak with a rational and clear voice, chances are that you'll do okay.

if however you fear being victimised (for irrational or subconscious traumatic childhood reasons or many other reasons too numerous to list) that have absolutely nothing to do with the goal that everyone else is focussing on, *or* if your background is sufficiently technically lacking that you're unable to contribute usefully, chances are high that it's not going to go well for you unless you're prepared to overcome those fears or lack of technical knowledge in pursuit of the goal.

Criticism of meritocracy is mostly about meritocracies not being real meritocracies, e.g. by favoring the loudest over the silent, judging not on real merit but stereotypes, etc. (see [1]).

bob's team's 20-year-long study shows that compared to *all* other forms of decision-making, unanimous small groups 50-50 men and women of between 7 and 9 people total is by far and above the most effective means to achieve goals. this is not a new discovery: it's a rediscovery of something that's been shown to be highly effective throughout human history, the more recent descriptions include the book "The Mythical Man-Month" as well as "Agile Programming".

anyway: you can probably tell that i don't think highly of meritocracies. this was one of the mistakes made by the Apache Software Foundation with the introduction of their Charter, which solely and exclusively required consideration of contributions based on "technical merit". back in 1998 or so i proposed that they consider adding "strategic merit" to the Charter but this was not taken up.

I don’t think creativity is the perfect basis for ethics though.

i do. i instinctively get it, from my background in physics as well as other training including some that's related to daoism, some in christianity, and some related to the kaballah. really long story dating back over the last 28 years and counting.

the clue is in the mention of the word "entropy". bear in mind also that bob's father was a famous theoretical physicist, and that bob himself met paul dirac, years ago. so like many physicists, bob is aware that a vacuum is literally seething with unbelievable potential energy to create absolutely any particle.

if we wish to maintain a particular "state", we have to be aware of ourselves and also aware of that state, otherwise it is impossible (like the million monkeys typing shakespeare and then one of them eating it) to achieve. entropy being what it is, it requires *effort* to both reach and then maintain a chosen "state".

if the connection between ethics and creativity isn't clear, re-read the definitions. bob uses the terms "truth, love, awareness and creativity" as synonyms for the same underlying concept, on the basis that if you reduce any one of them, you reduce all the others as well.

the bill of ethics is just the tip of the iceberg: a result of 30 years of work by some extraordinary people. i've been investigating their work for the past few months and am only beginning to scratch the surface.

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

On 09/17/2016 10:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

On 09/17/2016 04:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:

...

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 and http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

i would be interested in an evaluation as to whether anyone feels that esr's comments are compatible with the Bill of Ethics. my feeling is that they are, and that the "Contributor Covenant" most certainly is not.

l.

They seem to be constructive (bill of ethics 3.10), but the first one may also be a deliberate misunderstanding to convince others that sexism/racism/… is OK

only if you choose to *make* such a deliberate misunderstanding.

...

(limiting the contributions and thus creativity of affected people, see bill of rights 3.03).

if there were any mention of the words "creed" or "colour" or any other deliberately exclusionary terms, you would be absolutely correct. however there is not a single term or phrase in the entire document which may be construed as being *remotely* of the type that you fear.

I’m speaking of the esr comments in mdn’s first link (see above), not the bill of rights.

oh :)

It directly references skin color, religion etc. and the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective harm. The bill of rights is against harm.

not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth, creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same underlying concept). that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".

to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset? can that be called "harm"? (it can). thus, telling someone the truth may actually cause them "harm"!

My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not.

you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.

Yes, contributions should be judged on (some kind of) merit, but we should acknowledge possible biases – this is all.

i'm inclined to quote the phrase "correlation is not causation", here. let's use an example. let's say that you have an "inner city" programme which is making an effort to introduce kids from extremely impoverished and extremely rough backgrounds straight into linux kernel programming. realistically: how well do you think that would actually go? how well do you feel that, statistically speaking, any one of a selection of 17-year-olds whose primary daily focus is on not getting knifed or shot by ongoing drug-related gang warfare would *usefully* be able to contribute to the linux kernel without first extracting them from that environment and putting them through an intensive 2-5 year-long crash-course in software engineering?

so, every single one of these hypothetical inner city kids submits his first patch and is roasted on the flames of lkml, laughs at the total lack of danger due to them having faced down actual *real* life-threatening danger on a daily basis, and walks away from the programme. then imagine that some blithering political fuckwit comes along and says "but you're being exclusionary to inner city kids!!!!" - well, noo... their mindset is focussed on survival, not on programming, they haven't had *any* training in software engineering, so surpriiise! they can't usefully contribute.

"but you're being biased!!!" says the political fuckwit.

whilst this is an extreme (and obvious) example, there are unfortunately some other examples which *may* be a little less black and white. and you know what? regardless of whether it's black-and-white or grey, i genuinely couldn't give a monkey's. why? because at every phase, at every moment, i assess "does this conversation and/or contribution help or hinder the goal, yes or no".

there *is* no other consideration. not "are you my friend", not "are you gay", not "do you have two heads, five tentacles and smell of elderberries". always at the heart of everything that i do, having set this goal is: "does this conversation / contribution help achieve the goal, yes or no". if "no" i will decide what action to take (if any) to mitigate its adverse effects (time / effort analysis). if "yes" i will encourage / engage.

this level of pathological focus on goals can be a bit hard for other people to grasp... but that's genuinely how i operate. it stems from a definition of relationships (which comes from the dao). "relationships are about shared goals. if you share a goal, you *have* a relationship". put another way: if you do not share a goal with someone (whatever that may be) there is *no need* - at all - to "relate" to them. *in any way*. you can dress that up in terms of energy-resonance with quantum mechanics equations if you like, and it boils down to exactly the same thing in the end.

the "traditional" usage of the word "relationship" is often that it is defined in terms of itself... or that the relationship *is* the goal (!). business "relationship". personal "relationship". these definitions get thoroughly in the way. i often hear people try to dismiss the above definition, on the basis that the word "relationship" is in and of itself *the* main thing. they try to tell me that it is wrong, that relationships cannot be defined as "being about sharing a goal", quoting "personal relationship" as a perfect example. i have to gently tell such people that even an abusive relationship is one where the goal is "abuse the other person". they tend to get quite upset about that.

anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct", *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative. if the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical.

however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and become bogged down in defining them. in quantum mechanics tunneling terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum well. only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can it escape the trap.

...

if the connection between ethics and creativity isn't clear, re-read the definitions. bob uses the terms "truth, love, awareness and creativity" as synonyms for the same underlying concept, on the basis that if you reduce any one of them, you reduce all the others as well.

I did not understand that. It makes sense then, even though my terminology is different.

i must apologise for not being able to explain. it's something that bob studied for 30 years to be able to explain easily and simply. i've "recognised" it - known what he's getting at for all of my life, but have been unable to properly verbalise (express it to others). which is why, when i met bob a few months back i jumped at the opportunity to talk with him personally, because i could see that he was able to express something that i could not. i'm still learning.

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 12:34 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

On 09/17/2016 11:52 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

It directly references skin color, religion etc. and the term SJW clearly is about these -isms. Sexism etc. are selective harm. The bill of rights is against harm.

not quite: it's specifically against "reductions of truth, creativity, love and awareness" (those all being synonyms for the same underlying concept). that's *not* quite the same thing as "harm".

to illustrate the difference clearly: if you tell someone the truth when they don't want to hear it, do they get really upset? can that be called "harm"? (it can). thus, telling someone the truth may actually cause them "harm"!

Well, yes. I oversimplified.

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.

...

...

My point is, it seems to me the first esr link does not address the real arguments made by “SJWs” but strawmen, perhaps deliberately, perhaps not.

you can see hints that his (esr's) mind knows that something's wrong with SJWs, and that he's trying to make sense of it.

It is quite possible that esr’s comment was an honest comment meant to be constructive instead of a deliberate misunderstanding. However, esr’s arguments may be an appropriate response to a call for affirmative action / positive discrimination, but no such call was made by the “Social Justice Warriors”.

...

anyway, my point is: i see absolutely no need for a "code of conduct", *especially* not one that even *identifies* -isms as being something that's necessary to acknowledge or even remotely consider as part of achieving the goal of ensuring the success of the EOMA initiative. if the EOMA initiative *itself* were *defined* as being "the promotion of -isms" then and *only* then would "-isms" be absolutely critical.

however, as it is not, my feeling is that to remain *entirely -ism neutral* and i do mean utterly -ism independent, it is much better to not even *acknowledge the existence* of -isms than it is to try and become bogged down in defining them. in quantum mechanics tunneling terms, if the particle "looks backwards" it cannot escape the quantum well. only if it ignores the impossibly-high cliff wall entirely can it escape the trap.

When there are many administrators/moderators/employees/… who can make decisions, having a clear policy protects decision makers from accusations of not being impartial and makes it easier to complain about bad decisions.

there's a prior step here which is critically important to have even before adding in "complaints procedures". adding in any kind of "code of conduct" on top of something that is fundamentally broken (or hasn't been made clear) is asking for trouble.

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.

and i can also see that the Bill of Ethics is sufficiently "low-level" that a "code of conduct" is not even necessary.

Yes, defining -isms is hard, therefore the best practice appears to be to adopt a code of conduct written and tested by others with more experience, see [2].

no. fundamentally disagree. finding a communications and decision-making process that is good enough such that it *doesn't need* a code of conduct (because it's a completely -ism-agnostic part *of* the process) is i feel more important than trying to band-aid broken decision-making processes.

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:01 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

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.

i didn't notice :)

Yes, the Bill of Ethics is not rights-based. I don’t think a rights-based approach is doomed to failure though.

bob demonstrated the difference at porcfest2016 - bear in mind that he's 78 years old - in the most hilarious way that i've ever seen anyone do, let alone someone who's mild-mannered, quietly and logically well-spoken as well as being so frickin old. bear in mind this is in front of an audience of 200 people... :) he opened his mouth and eyes wide, leaned his head back and skywards, and didn't say a single word. what he was illustrating was "someone standing there, dumb as anything, waiting for a great big tit to be placed in their mouth so they could suck on it".

it was the funniest thing i've seen in a long, long time.

anything that's "rights-based" is laden with the implicit and dangerous expectation (and associated abdication of responsibility) that *someone else* will provide for all your needs (defined clearly as "your rights"), or, even worse, that you are ENTITLED to either demand or even worse than demanding just merely TAKE what is declared and laid out in whatever document uses the word "rights".

unfortunately, "rights" have been "fought for" for so long that it's become a form of indoctrination, rarely if ever challenged.

...

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.

someone who *cannot* derive (or phrase) their complaint in terms of how *even their complaints* will benefit the goal is not someone that i seek to be on the team associated with the EOMA initiatives.

the *only* thing i will ever wish to hear - if there is a complaint - is: "i wish to make a complaint! you are not fulfilling the objectives of the EOMA initiative!"

anything other than that *will* be assessed as to whether responding to it is going to hinder or help the EOMA initiative.

did i make it clear that i am quite pathological about goals? i'm not sure if i said it clearly enough for it to be believed.

Low-level ethics also run the risk of having multiple interpretations.

good!! that's called "creativity"!!

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

On 09/18/2016 09:08 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

anything that's "rights-based" is laden with the implicit and dangerous expectation (and associated abdication of responsibility) that *someone else* will provide for all your needs (defined clearly as "your rights"), or, even worse, that you are ENTITLED to either demand or even worse than demanding just merely TAKE what is declared and laid out in whatever document uses the word "rights".

unfortunately, "rights" have been "fought for" for so long that it's become a form of indoctrination, rarely if ever challenged.

There also are duties, yes. I agree that rights are not enough. One can argue though that duties follow from the rights.

taking just the bill of ethics section on "certainty", if you define things in terms of "certain duties" you've already failed. if you are *certain* that duties will help fulfil a goal, you've moved into static bureaucracy without even realising it... and are thus moving automatically and subconsciously into being *unable* to react to changing circumstances, and thus, by definition, *will* be unable to fulfil the goal.

entropy has to be fought, basically. now, that's not to be confused with "duty" in the indian / ayurvedic context, which is best phrased as "doing your duty" i.e. "act with integrity". that's *completely* different.

... but if you're referring to "dividing a goal up into fixed duties" that to me is an *automatic* way to fail.

Well, in a larger organization some simple complaints are easier to support and assess without disputes when there is a high-level policy. But you are not a large organization, so you don’t need one right now anyway.

did you know that visa (the credit card company) became highly successful world-wide without having a single manager anywhere across the entire organisation? when it was bought out it was transformed into the hierarchical top-down bureaucratic nightmare that it now is, but prior to that they had absolutely no management structure of any kind.

they operated entirely and exclusively - thousands of people across dozens of offices - in small groups of around 7 people.

the myth that hier-ocracy is the only way to organise is just that: a myth.

i need to transform what i am doing into something that is more than just me, that can scale with integrity, in a way that is *not* susceptible to the untold damage caused by hierocracy, autocracy, democracy and meritocracy. the only thing that i have found so far which fits the bill is bob's work, which he's called "organised an-archy" i.e. "organisation in the absence of overarching authority".

words like "policy" and "rights" and "duties" and "democracy" and "hierarchy" - these are all "sleepwalking" words that have countless examples showing us how badly and how drastically they're failing us. i do have to hand over control of the EOMA initiative to a responsible group at some point in the next ten years, but it will *not* be to a group that basically sleepwalks the EOMA initiative into oblivion.

sorry if this comes as a bit of a shock, florian. there's an article on slashdot just come out "why aren't techies improving the world"? https://ask.slashdot.org/story/16/09/18/0152208/ask-slashdot-why-arent-techi... i didn't respond here (i am still dealing with flu, have been for 3-4 days now), and the comments got too large for it to be worthwhile responding.

have you seen what elon musk is up to? have you analysed his behaviour at all? he's advocating that we convert all our cars to electric (when there isn't enough lithium, neodymium or copper on the planet to support a *fraction* of the conversions), which tells you that he has no idea or consideration of the environmental damage of what he's advocating. he's advocating that we "go to mars" and is setting up Space-X as a way to kickstart that. put these two things together, and we can logically deduce that he's basically "given up" on the people of planet earth.

all that power - all that money... and he's treating humans like test subjects for technology (and killing them on a regular basis with these "auto-pilot" systems aka "driver assist").

one of the goals that i have is to undo some of the damage caused by Dell, HP, IBM, Lenovo, Acer, Asus, Toshiba, Samsung and Apple - as pawns of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and others - before it's too late.

do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm) would be a good idea? because i certainly don't!

this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start, but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible nightmare scenario.

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

On 09/18/2016 11:05 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

There also are duties, yes. I agree that rights are not enough. One can argue though that duties follow from the rights.

taking just the bill of ethics section on "certainty", if you define things in terms of "certain duties" you've already failed. if you are *certain* that duties will help fulfil a goal, you've moved into static bureaucracy without even realising it... and are thus moving automatically and subconsciously into being *unable* to react to changing circumstances, and thus, by definition, *will* be unable to fulfil the goal.

entropy has to be fought, basically. now, that's not to be confused with "duty" in the indian / ayurvedic context, which is best phrased as "doing your duty" i.e. "act with integrity". that's *completely* different.

... but if you're referring to "dividing a goal up into fixed duties" that to me is an *automatic* way to fail.

I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation details but more generally about the complement to rights in the European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.

don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!

no, it's a totally different meaning of the word "duty" in the vedic context (which has nothing to do with religion). "duty" in the vedic context is more akin to "fulfilment of responsibility as associated with roles". it's *absolutely nothing* to do with "rights"

What I mean is that a rights-based ethic

stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic. or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".

An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with similar consequences.

i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english language). you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".

the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic. yeah. my ethic is, i can kill anybody i like that gets in my way".

the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and it is *not internally negotiable*. as in, it is an *objective* measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical".... or not ethical... in terms that are black and white.

that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".

I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.

? if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition - impossible to have a hierarchy. if you are solely and exclusively responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.

*by definition*.

Some people apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.

it's by definition. an-archy *means* - by definition "without having any arch".

For example, Wikipedia has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.

if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is *by definition* no longer an an-archy.

It may be more clear to call it organization.

...

words like "policy" and "rights" and "duties" and "democracy" and "hierarchy" - these are all "sleepwalking" words that have countless examples showing us how badly and how drastically they're failing us. i do have to hand over control of the EOMA initiative to a responsible group at some point in the next ten years, but it will *not* be to a group that basically sleepwalks the EOMA initiative into oblivion.

Yes, they often go wrong. Disregarding them often goes wrong too. It depends on the implementation. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that rights *cannot* work as well as ideals.

More relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.

it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.

I don’t think our opinions are far apart.

florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the different understandings that you have of certain words which are critical to the conversation. with clarity of the understanding of words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions, even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we say.

but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard / measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer than i have time for, for which i apologise.

I am quite happy with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of profit maximization or else I would not be here.

can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read, the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's almost overwhelming.

...

do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm) would be a good idea? because i certainly don't!

this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start, but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible nightmare scenario.

l.

I do agree with you. It is interesting to hear about these issues; one year ago I still considered electric cars a great idea (which is what the TV and the politicians tell us here in Germany). Well, we’re also told that nuclear power is more of a problem than coal…

thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric vehicle.

utter insanity. they're *literally* deluded.

cars - vehicles - are next on my list to tackle. got a design concept (google "divergentmicrofactories.com" as well as "localmotors"), got an engine design (a derivative of the bourke engine including variable compression ratio from 8:1 up to 40:1).

long story. not relevant to this list.

l.

Looks like http://www.divergent3d.com is the right URL (though slightly off topic for EOMA68, still probably worth an investment, a portable car chassis! The video is pretty amazing)

Russell

On 20 September 2016 at 09:30, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation details but more generally about the complement to rights in the European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.

don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!

India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which is why I said so. It was not the best wording.

...

...

What I mean is that a rights-based ethic

stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic. or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".

...

An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with similar consequences.

i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english language). you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".

the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic. yeah. my ethic is, i can kill anybody i like that gets in my way".

Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.

...

the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and it is *not internally negotiable*. as in, it is an *objective* measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical".... or not ethical... in terms that are black and white.

that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".

...

I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.

? if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition - impossible to have a hierarchy. if you are solely and exclusively responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.

*by definition*.

You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. If there were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.

...

...

Some people apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.

it's by definition. an-archy *means* - by definition "without having any arch".

...

For example, Wikipedia has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.

if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is *by definition* no longer an an-archy.

With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance, voluntary institutions etc., yes.

...

...

More relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.

it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.

I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization. Now, if you don’t want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.

...

...

I don’t think our opinions are far apart.

florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the different understandings that you have of certain words which are critical to the conversation. with clarity of the understanding of words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions, even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we say.

but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard / measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer than i have time for, for which i apologise.

Yes, it is a problem with terms.

...

...

I am quite happy with WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of profit maximization or else I would not be here.

can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read, the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's almost overwhelming.

This is not the first time I heard of it. I will read it.

...

...

...

do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm) would be a good idea? because i certainly don't!

this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start, but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible nightmare scenario.

l.

I do agree with you. It is interesting to hear about these issues; one year ago I still considered electric cars a great idea (which is what the TV and the politicians tell us here in Germany). Well, we’re also told that nuclear power is more of a problem than coal…

thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric vehicle.

utter insanity. they're *literally* deluded.

cars - vehicles - are next on my list to tackle. got a design concept (google "divergentmicrofactories.com" as well as "localmotors"), got an engine design (a derivative of the bourke engine including variable compression ratio from 8:1 up to 40:1).

long story. not relevant to this list.

l.

Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be “solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good.

---

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

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:

no it is actually partially relevant because of the relation to 3D printing. i've been tracking what kevin's up to and am investigating how to get a SLS 3D printer made up (as i might need it for the hinges on the laptop and/or making up an entire aluminium variant of the casework).

.... or to SLS 3D-print the molds which are then used for injection-molding... blah blah... :)

On 09/20/2016 11:58 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

...

...

For example, Wikipedia has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.

if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is *by definition* no longer an an-archy.

With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance, voluntary institutions etc., yes.

i would agree with you that there are different contexts.

for example: a parent with a 2-year-old child, living within an an-archic society, *clearly* would not place their 18-month-old child's decision-making capacity at the same priority / level as that of themselves! funnily enough this has actually been partially taken into account, already, within the "bill of ethics", as covered by the section on "awareness of self-awareness".

to cater for this, we define "groups". the above example would be a family "group" where they have their own entirely self-determined way of dealing with and interacting with each other. the members of that "group" would make the decision to interact with other "groups" (of one or more people) in their organised an-archic pre-agreed fashion.

now, to expand the example even further, it may be the case that these "groups" operate within the laws of a particular country, where the "Hierarchical Ruler" of that country expects their laws to be obeyed as a priority over-and-above that of any "group decisions". thus we can see, a "group" has to set a specific focus of their activities which do *not* encompass *all* aspects of their lives.

thus, my point is: we may set an "an-archic" decision-making process to cover very very specific goals (such as Visa's early example showed) - Visa's example certainly did not specifiy that the employees had to blatantly disobey traffic laws, tax laws, or other "Hierarchical-based" power structures that have nothing to do with the day-to-day running of the Visa corporation as an Organised Anarchy!

I agree. Your strict, more literal definition of anarchy can exist within limits. Some might call a more complete (political) system with “voluntary” hierarchies an anarchy too even though it is not truly without leaders, but that sense is not literal.

...

...

...

More relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.

it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.

I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization.

... and i don't believe that it's a good idea (at all) to even *have* a code of conduct for a larger organisation, other than to make it absolutely clear that there is a goal, that the goal SHALL be reached ethically and by unanimous decision-making, and that anyone who gets in the way of achieving that goal SHALL be removed from the team.

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.

...

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. If an appeal to wallets works then only with a shift in peoples’ priorities. I don’t know though.

On 09/22/2016 04:51 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

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.

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.

...

...

...

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.

It’s mostly the other drivers I’m concerned about when I read test results like these [1]. But yes, these L7e vehicles look like they could be made sustainable.

[1] http://www.euroncap.com/en/vehicle-safety/safety-campaigns/2016-quadricycles...

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

On 09/22/2016 04:54 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:12 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

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.

We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see. It hopefully will not ever matter. I fear taking away too much of your time when you have more urgent things to do.

But I am still unconvinced; let me list the points of disagreement and/or possible misunderstandings:

possible misunderstanding: A code of conduct is – unlike the bill of ethics – not even meant to be complete and *not* intended as a replacement for the bill of ethics. It is more like when there is precedent for a decision so when the circumstances are the same, a decision is simple and no discussion is needed. (Yes, some communities use the CoC for more than a list of uncontroversial statements; this is not what I am asking for.)

possible misunderstanding: Yes, a code of conduct is not a panacea; there will still be bad people and there will still be trolls. It is only meant to help in *some* cases.

possible misunderstanding: A code of conduct just (for the issues it covers) makes clear who is in the wrong. A punishment need not be specified and need not be harsh.

disagreement: Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad things. A code of conduct is not like a list of unpatched security vulnerabilities. There are codes of conduct that have been refined time and again to not contain bad things.

disagreement: More importantly, when it comes to harassment, the harassment is always inappropriate no matter what the victim of the harassment did. Often victims don’t make a legitimate complaint because they fear victim blaming. By victim I mean the victim of a concrete act (with “T.L.A.C. reduced”), not that the person is always a victim.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:

...

It hopefully will not ever matter.

it will not ever matter.

...

I fear taking away too much of your time when you have more urgent things to do.

ok: let me expand on the above "it will not ever matter". if you don't mind me pointing this out, you've demonstrated that you're unable to follow comprehensive logic. this is what's taking up my time.

boolean logic from programming gives us chains: A AND B AND C etc. is only true *if all* A, B, C etc. are true. thus if we have even one single statement that is false, the entire chain falls down. likewise with A OR B OR C: this is true if even *one* of A, B or C is true. thus, the only way for an OR-chain to be false is if *all* statements are false.

i have (so far) demonstrated two things:

(1) that there exists SIX separate statements found so far which make a CoC utterly and fatally unsuitable for use. it doesn't matter if you were to disagree with five of them: the last remaining one would, all on its own, be sufficient grounds to carpet-bomb a CoC into complete oblivion.

(2) that for the Bill of Ethics all examples given (so far - admittedly only two but there was additional analysis as well) stand up to scrutiny. thus in the case of the BoE it stands up to the "AND" chain of logic.

now, despite this, you keep presenting "fear, fear, fear, doubt, fear, i'm afraid, i hope it won't matter" - as in, you're not following the chain of logic, you're not following the analysis, and are stuck in "fear".

it's fine to have doubts, and it's fine to not have "all the answers". in fact, up until i read the BoE it had never occurred to me that "certainty" is a Really Bad Idea, but it now makes a lot of sense.

but if for all analysis of document (1) the pointers analysed *so far* all say "EPIC SPECTACULAR FAIL" and for document (2) the pointers analysed *so far* all say "REASONABLE PASS", further discussion is soomewhat superfluous until such time as there is further additional examples or cases to add to (1) or (2). actually, given that (1) is so toxic in such an overwhelming number of ways it hardly warrants *any* further presentation of examples. that just leaves (2) for which further examples and/or cases would prove to be useful to analyse, to ensure that they pass.

unit tests, in other words.

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:

[ Besides, from a logician's standpoint, if this discussion was to linger on much more, I would find it unsatisfactory that it might become a /cause/ for putting a code or bill in place in order to prevent any future discussion dragging from happening again. :) ]

.... interestingly agreed with. thus the discussion itself becomes a demonstration of the lack of fitness for purpose of "CoCs", given that it could not have been anticipated to be one of the "-isms" aka "causes" that should be "protected" against!

so no. no CoC. that was clear right from the very beginning.

l.

On 09/23/2016 03:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de wrote:

...

We need not continue this discussion and could instead wait and see.

no, i will not be waiting and seeing. there is absolutely no contest. CoCs are, from the comprehensive analysis that i've done, extremely dangerous and toxic documents. i was not joking when i said that each of the flaws in the concept of a CoC is so fundamental as to *on their own* place them well beyond the possibility of deployment. that i could find *six* such fundamental and fatal flaws makes a CoC almost a joke.

I am disagreeing with each of the six. Some I think are due to misunderstanding. My five points cover all six of yours.

...

It hopefully will not ever matter.

it will not ever matter.

...

I fear taking away too much of your time when you have more urgent things to do.

But I am still unconvinced; let me list the points of disagreement and/or possible misunderstandings:

possible misunderstanding: A code of conduct is – unlike the bill of ethics – not even meant to be complete and *not* intended as a replacement for the bill of ethics. It is more like when there is precedent for a decision so when the circumstances are the same, a decision is simple and no discussion is needed. (Yes, some communities use the CoC for more than a list of uncontroversial statements; this is not what I am asking for.)

possible misunderstanding: Yes, a code of conduct is not a panacea; there will still be bad people and there will still be trolls. It is only meant to help in *some* cases.

then it is completely useless. if it doesn't cover *all* cases, it's utterly and completely useless. it's like placing a series of gates (with no walls) around your stash of gold. now expand that to multi-dimensional space.

No, a hammer is still useful even if bare hands cover more cases.

...

possible misunderstanding: A code of conduct just (for the issues it covers) makes clear who is in the wrong. A punishment need not be specified and need not be harsh.

declaring that someone is "in the wrong" even before the analyisis has been done *is* itself wrong. what if it turns out, especially as has happened with Julian Assange and with the Tor group that the accusations - the "victims" - were outright liars, involved in entrapment?

A CoC is useful when the accused says “it wasn’t wrong”. It is not useful when the accused says “I didn’t do it”.

having a code of conduct paints a huge target on a project, saying "here's how you are GUARANTEED to disrupt this project" by having a comprehensive and detailed list to work from, where you *know* that they're going to treat the "victim" as being "in the right" no matter what.

Security by obscurity does not work here. Trolls already know how to troll.

a code of conduct is a knee-jerk "no thought, analysis or compassion required" reaction, florian. they're DANGEROUS documents.

A CoC makes clear what the issue is. Analysis may still be required for how to deal with it.

...

disagreement: Having a list of very general bad things does *not* make people do bad things.

oh yes it does. you've probably never experienced that, but i have. to give you an example: have you heard about when Mother Theresa was invited to a "War Rally"? do you know what her response was? she said, "no thanks.... but if you invite me to a PEACE Rally i'll be there".

in other words, when you start talking about PROTESTING -ISMs, guess what happens? up pops aaalllll the people who want an opportunity to PROTEST -ISMs.

so NO. there will be NO INVITATION TO ATTACK placed on ANY project associated with EOMA.

...

disagreement: More importantly, when it comes to harassment, the harassment is always inappropriate no matter what the victim of the harassment did. Often victims don’t make a legitimate complaint because they fear victim blaming. By victim I mean the victim of a concrete act (with “T.L.A.C. reduced”), not that the person is always a victim.

please research the concept "victim mentality" more thoroughly.

I’m not saying the harassed person cannot have done something wrong as well, but the harasser is always wrong. I still believe this to be true.

On Tuesday 20. September 2016 09.36.39 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric vehicle.

I don't really want to weigh in on a topic that I don't have any specific interest or expertise in, but my impression was (Musk aside) that nobody really expects battery technology to stick with lithium or "rare earths". Here, progress in materials science appears to be driving development towards more mundane materials.

Paul

On Tuesday 20. September 2016 14.54.29 mdn wrote:

Are you talking about graphene based components ? Because we are still a far away from large methods of production, no ?

No, and I don't know. ;-) I keep reading stuff about zinc-air batteries, for example, but I was just saying that there is now sufficient commercial interest in a diverse selection of battery technologies and an ever-increasing motivation to discover (or rediscover) approaches that deliver better (cheaper, safer, more sustainable) solutions.

Paul

2016-09-21 3:47 GMT+02:00 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net:

---

crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:

...

I don't really want to weigh in on a topic that I don't have any specific interest or expertise in, but my impression was (Musk aside) that nobody really expects battery technology to stick with lithium or "rare earths".

Musk's take of the cut, drivers others to find alternatives.

...

Here, progress in materials science appears to be driving development

towards

...

more mundane materials.

that just leaves copper. if there existed a room-temperature flexible superconductor replacement we'd do okay.

We're getting there: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Timeline_of_Superconduct...

http://phys.org/news/2016-02-graphene-superconductiveelectrons-mass-resistan...

But it'll take a while before production. But the higher the demands on batteries and semiconductors. The harder the search for alternatives.

All semiconductor companies have serious trouble further miniaturizing silicon lithography. If we find ways to reduce resistance in the materials than the miniaturization becomes less of an issue.

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

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla'' valhalla-l@trueelena.org wrote:

On 2016-09-17 at 09:05:00 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

...

correct. one of the things that i love about free software is that most people are completely anonymous behind a wall of plain text. we don't give a fuck about people's gender, or race, or age, or size, or any other fuckwit politically bullshit-orientated delusionary attitudes.

this, sadly, it not true, except maybe for a few very specific cases. [..]

elena what you wrote is extremely insightful and very much appreciated, as well as correcting some of the assumptions i made. thank you.

l.