[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

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 at 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.