On 09/20/2016 11:58 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) > <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote: >>>> For example, Wikipedia >>>> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work >>>> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at >>>> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well. >>> >>> if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then >>> by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is >>> *by definition* no longer an an-archy. >>> >> >> With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance, >> voluntary institutions etc., yes. > > i would agree with you that there are different contexts. > > for example: a parent with a 2-year-old child, living within an > an-archic society, *clearly* would not place their 18-month-old > child's decision-making capacity at the same priority / level as that > of themselves! funnily enough this has actually been partially taken > into account, already, within the "bill of ethics", as covered by the > section on "awareness of self-awareness". > > to cater for this, we define "groups". the above example would be a > family "group" where they have their own entirely self-determined way > of dealing with and interacting with each other. the members of that > "group" would make the decision to interact with other "groups" (of > one or more people) in their organised an-archic pre-agreed fashion. > > now, to expand the example even further, it may be the case that > these "groups" operate within the laws of a particular country, where > the "Hierarchical Ruler" of that country expects their laws to be > obeyed as a priority over-and-above that of any "group decisions". > thus we can see, a "group" has to set a specific focus of their > activities which do *not* encompass *all* aspects of their lives. > > thus, my point is: we may set an "an-archic" decision-making process > to cover very very specific goals (such as Visa's early example > showed) - Visa's example certainly did not specifiy that the employees > had to blatantly disobey traffic laws, tax laws, or other > "Hierarchical-based" power structures that have nothing to do with the > day-to-day running of the Visa corporation as an Organised Anarchy! >
I agree. Your strict, more literal definition of anarchy can exist within limits. Some might call a more complete (political) system with “voluntary” hierarchies an anarchy too even though it is not truly without leaders, but that sense is not literal. >>>> More >>>> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so >>>> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations. >>> >>> it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it. >>> >> >> I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code >> of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization. > > ... and i don't believe that it's a good idea (at all) to even *have* > a code of conduct for a larger organisation, other than to make it > absolutely clear that there is a goal, that the goal SHALL be reached > ethically and by unanimous decision-making, and that anyone who gets > in the way of achieving that goal SHALL be removed from the team. > > my belief is that the "bill of ethics" is sufficient to be *the* > top-level document, and my analysis leads me to believe that it is > sufficiently strong and sufficiently clear that even *attempting* to > add a "code of conduct" is not only superfluous but would also destroy > the document's integrity. > > in true respect *of* the "bill of ethics" however, there is no > certainty in that statement: there is only "very high confidence > statistical probability as empirically shown so far" :) > > OK, I hope there will never be disputes about whether a …ist joke really was so unethical. >> Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be >> “solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good. > > learning the lesson from EOMA68, if you appeal to people's wallets, > they'll go for it. the fact that it's eco-conscious is just "icing on > the cake". divergentmicrofactories.com has the story about how 80% of > the environmental damage is done even before the vehicle rolls off the > sales court. that's translates to an enormous cost-saving... just by > 3D printing aluminium nodes on-site and slotting carbon-fibre tubes > into them, to make up a chassis weighing in at only 30kg (as opposed > to 1,000 to 2,500 kg for a steel car / SUV). > I believe sustainable mobility requires that we demand less with respect to speed, reach etc. and not only hope for better technology. A light 30kg chassis sounds nice but less safe in a high-speed crash. If an appeal to wallets works then only with a shift in peoples’ priorities. I don’t know though. _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
