[Arm-netbook] Code of conduct?

[Sam Pablo Kuper]

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-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachme

[mdn]

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.

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.
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
"""
- arm-netbook list: yes.
- Rhombus Tech wiki: yes.
"""
I would, personally, *not* welcome receiving supporting arguments for
- 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
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Muhammed Adel Afzal]

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" <***@openmailbox.org>
To: arm-***@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.

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.
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
"""
- arm-netbook list: yes.
- Rhombus Tech wiki: yes.
"""
I would, personally, *not* welcome receiving supporting arguments for
- 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
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

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

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-n

[mdn]

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

Post by Muhammed Adel Afzal
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 -----
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.

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.
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
"""
- arm-netbook list: yes.
- Rhombus Tech wiki: yes.
"""
I would, personally, *not* welcome receiving supporting arguments for
- 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
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[mdn]

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

Post by mdn
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.

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.
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
"""
- arm-netbook list: yes.
- Rhombus Tech wiki: yes.
"""
I would, personally, *not* welcome receiving supporting arguments for
- 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
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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].

yes, they do. i've encountered several (and some Charters) including
the ASF's Charter and others.

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

huh. never occurred to me before.

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.

if there is to be any deployment of a Charter, it would be based
around the goal of supporting and protecting the EOMA initiative; it
would also be based on the Bill of Ethics
https://www.titanians.org/the-bill-of-ethics/ with no other document
being authoritative over or superceding it (ever).

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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 (limiting the contributions and thus creativity of
affected people, see bill of rights 3.03). Accepting contributions
regardless of gender/race/… does not mean accepting contributions
regardless of quality. 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]).

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

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[1] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Meritocracy


_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to ar

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Sam Pablo Kuper
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
(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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachmen

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper

Post by mdn
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
(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. 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.

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. Yes, contributions should be judged on (some kind of) merit, but we
should acknowledge possible biases – this is all. It is not ethical to
participate in smear campaigns against those who say so.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachment

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 8:29 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 9:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper

Post by mdn
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
(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 :)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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"!

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-net

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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”.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

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].

As I said, I don’t think adopting a CoC is useful if there is a single
decision maker though.

Regards,
Florian Pelz

[2] http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbo

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:06 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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”.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send lar

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
words being what they are, it's a critical, critical difference which
indicates a fundamental and key difference between this document and
any others that anyone (including myself) is ever likely to have
encountered. up until two months ago i *genuinely* thought that the
"Bill of Rights" was a really good document. then i heard of the
"Bill of Ethics" and realised - only by comparison - that anything
labelled "Rights" is downright dangerous.

Oh boy, I said Bill of Rights when I meant Bill of Ethics. Yes, the Bill
of Ethics is not rights-based. I don’t think a rights-based approach is
doomed to failure though.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
and i can also see that the Bill of Ethics is sufficiently
"low-level" that a "code of conduct" is not even necessary.

We want a high-level document (when multiple decision makers are
involved). Someone who wants to complain of bad behavior should not need
to derive their complaint from low-level ethics. Low-level ethics also
run the risk of having multiple interpretations.


_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attach

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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 :)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Low-level ethics also
run the risk of having multiple interpretations.

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

l.

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Of course the basis/axioms of ethics do not need to be rights.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
Low-level ethics also
run the risk of having multiple interpretations.

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

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.


_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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-techies-improving-the-world
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbo

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

What I mean is that a rights-based ethic with the added / consequent
duty of working towards the implementation of the rights can work well.
An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
similar consequences.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

I did not know that.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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".

I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well. Some people
apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear. 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. It
may be more clear to call it organization.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

I don’t think our opinions are far apart. 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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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-techies-improving-the-world
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.

Sorry to hear that. I hope you get better soon.

The slashdot discussion is interesting.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

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…

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

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 8:25 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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"

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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*.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
It
may be more clear to call it organization.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@files.phcomp

[Russell Hyer]

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)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachme

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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

Post by Russell Hyer
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)

fricking awesome more like.

a 750 HP supercar weighing in at only 600kg because the chassis
weighs only 30kg.

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).

i might as well have some cross-over between the planned projects,
basically, if i'm going to be tackling both (one after the other), use
the tools from one as a boot-strap to make the other project easier.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachmen

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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... :)

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat.

hmmmm.... i am not comfortable with the view that i am "above" you.
i have certain responsibilities (as guardian of EOMA68), those
responsibilities in *no* way extend beyond that remit into *your* life
in *any* way... except if you were to overstep the mark and do or say
anything that threatened EOMA68.

there's a very tight Q on the band-pass filter, where our lives
literally do not meet, and even within the extremely limited field
where they do interact, i certainly do not have any authority over
you. the one sole exception being that you are a guest of the
resources that i provide, and that, by using these resources, you
accept (accepted) that they are for the purpose of seeing the EOMA
initiative be completed (not aggravated or jeapordised in any way).

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
If there
were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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".

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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!

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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" :)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

it's beautiful and compelling, and underscores very patiently and
logically why, if we wish to achieve sustainable goals other than
"maximisation of profits", we need to use "CICs" or in the U.S.
"Benefit Corporations". both terms are defined on wikipedia
(accurately, last time i checked), and they both fit the definition of
"Social Business" as outlined in Yunus's book.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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).

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attach

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

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

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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-tests/

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

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).

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-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@fil

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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
"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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
S

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:53 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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
"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.

ahh :) well, from what i see so far, there's no "dispute" - there is
only valuable discussion which helps refine and clarify.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

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

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 3:12 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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
(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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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?
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@fi

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
It hopefully will not ever matter.

it will not ever matter.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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
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.)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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?

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.

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

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-***@file

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
It hopefully will not ever matter.

it will not ever matter.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

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

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi,

If I may trespass on the discussion...

The first rule of engineering (alright, make that "one of the many first
rules of engineering") is "if it ain't broken, don't fix it".

Right now, IMO and AFAICT, there have been no incidents related to the
conduct of any participant in this project -- or if one prefers, no
incidents which any code or bill would have sorted out faster, let alone
prevented.

Therefore, I believe this project is not broken it a way that a code
or bill would (aim to) fix; hence, no such code or bill is needed, at
least ATM.

Actually, the most intensely disrupting event in this project (IMO, of
course) is... this discussion, which, while interesting indeed, diverts
part of our energy from the project itself and is beginning to span
quite a share of the current traffic.

Furthermore, it seems to me that at this point, this discussion could go
on indefinitely, because -- to my eyes -- it is now a confrontation of
opinions, which is fine, mind you :), but does not easily lead to
conclusions; as time progresses in such a situation, less and less new
arguments are offered, and more and more arguments already made are
repeated.

[ 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. :) ]

Therefore, and based on my personal feeling regarding the state of this
discussion, I respectfully suggest that if this discussion must go on,
maybe it should go on in another forum, or in private exchanges if
participants so prefer.

Amicalement,

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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

Post by Albert ARIBAUD
[ 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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Albert ARIBAUD
Hi,
If I may trespass on the discussion...
[…]

Yes. Thank you, Albert. All has been said, even if it was not fruitful.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Se

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 5:29 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
It hopefully will not ever matter.

it will not ever matter.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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
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.)
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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”.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

Post by pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
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.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachment

[pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)]

Please not what I’m talking about is something like this:

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy

No more, no less.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb

[Paul Boddie]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
S

[mdn]

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

Post by Paul Boddie

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Paul Boddie]

Post by mdn
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

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

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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

Post by Paul Boddie
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.

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

l.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-***@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbo

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

Post by Paul Boddie
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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton

Post by Paul Boddie
Here, progress in materials science appears to be driving development

towards

Post by Paul Boddie
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_Superconductivity_from_1900_to_2015.svg

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

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.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
l.
_______________________________________________
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

Humans are extremely good at getting hints that help put people in
specific bins, and they can often do so even from just written texts:
the most obvious think is finding out people's gender from their name
(and these days working from a pseudonim that is not connected to your
legal name is much rarer than it used to be), but you can also get hints
about nationality (or at least native language, for people for whom
english is a second language) and ethnicity from the errors (in the
former case) and the non-standard usages (in the latter), and of course
people of different generations do use different expressions.

Of course these hints have an even bigger failure rate than the ones
available in-person, but they still work in enough cases that they keep
being reinforced.

One big problem with this is that it mostly happens at an instinctive
level, so people may *honestly* believe that they aren't doing any
discrimination, and that they are giving everybody the same chances.

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
if you have the self belief to step forward onto a public
mailing list and can speak with a rational and clear voice,

and this already requires a higher effort from about half of humanity who
for centuries has been trained from a very young age that stepping
forward in public is something that they are not supposed to do.

Note that I don't believe that a free software community can do anything
to solve *this* problem, it's just something that I believe it's worth
remembering.

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

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


On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Elena ``of Valhalla''

Post by Elena ``of Valhalla''

Post by Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
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.

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