At 2025-02-06T23:19:11-0700, dovencio.dosho...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, February 6, 2025 7:12:09 PM MST G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > Hi Soren, > > > > Thank you for the serious follow-up. > > > > [...] > > > This includes participating in discussions about Debian policies > > > that involve their employer. > > > > Here I must disagree. I think your statement is equivalent to > > claiming that "there is no such thing as a conflict of interest", an > > ethical stance with a poor track record of producing socially > > desirable outcomes.[1] > > [...] > > [1] > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2017/04/18/trump-says-he-cant-hav > > e-conflicts-of-interest-former-business-partner-says-otherwise/ > > How does this statement be equivalent to "there is no such thing as a > conflict of interest?"
It's impossible to say, because you dropped context essential for the reader to comprehend the discussion. Let's trace the chain of references and antecedents. [you] "this statement" -> [me] "(I think) your statement" [me] "your statement" -> [Soren] "This" [Soren] "This" -> ??? > How does the linked article support your opinion? That people can disclaim conflicts of interest even while possessing them, which is a form of failing to disclose them. > > > 2. It is appropriate for an employee of such a company to disclose > > > their connection to the company when discussing policies regarding > > > that company. > > > > Then you and I disagree. I think Google employees/contractors are > > conflicted out on decisions like the one Roberto raised. Whether > > they support or oppose Roberto's stated position is immaterial. > > This isn't useful. Useful to what end? I offered an opinion, not a device or technique. > You can simply choose not to trust what the person has to say and > disclosing conflicts of interest would make it easier for you to not > trust them. One could "simply" choose not to trust what a person has to say based on their having blond hair or being shorter than 2 meters tall. It turns out that the concept of a conflict of interest is, contrary to height or hair color, materially correlated with outcomes of business or policy decisions. I won't support this claim for you with a literature search, but trust you to do so for yourself if you're curious, which I suspect you're not. > > If you think through the scenario of a Google employee _supporting_ > > Roberto's proposal, but being afraid to publicly say so, then you > > have deduced why the conflict of interest exists. > > Okay I'll bite here is some game theory: > > Bit 0: false = They are not in support; true = They are in support > > Bit 1: false = They are afraid of speaking publicly; true = They are > not afraid of speaking publicly > > Bit 2: false = They have harmful information; true = They have useful > information > > Bit 3: false = They don't clarify their conflict of interest; true = > They clarify their conflict of interest > > Note: If bit 1 is unset bit 3 is automatically false because they > would not be able to disclose their conflict of interest without being > able to speak about it Okay. You know how to set up (an elaborated) Prisoner's Dilemma matrix. Good show. [quoting the enumeration of 16 scenarios with some reluctance] > 0000: .25 > They don't support it, they don't speak about it, and they have > harmful information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about, > therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information. > > 1000: .25 > They support it, they don't speak about it, and they have harmful > information. Nothing happens because they don't speak about it, > therefore .25 for avoiding harmful information. > > 0100: -1 > They don't support it, they say something, it's harmful information, > and they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should > keep ties with Google but their information given is faulty and it > causes Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1. > > 1100: -1 > They do support it, they say something, it's harmful information, and > they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian shouldn't > keep ties with Google but their given info is faulty and and it causes > Debian to make the wrong decision, therefore -1. > > 0010: -.25 > They do not support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful > information. Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful > information -.25 > > 1010: -.25 > They do support it, they don't say anything, it is helpful > information. Nothing changes but Debian misses out on helpful > information -.25 > > 0110: 1 > They do not support it, they say something, it is helpful information, > they don't disclose their bias. The person says that Debian should > keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice, > 1. > > 1110: 1 > They support it, they say something, it is useful information, they > don't disclose their bias. The person says that that Debian shouldn't > keep ties with Google and the info helps Debian make the right choice, > 1. > > 0001: .25 Same as 0000 but if they did speak they would have disclosed > however, they didn't. > > 1001: .25 Same as 1001 but if they did speak they would have disclosed > however, they didn't. > > 0101: .75 They don't support it, they say something, it wasn't useful > information, but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person > says they think Debian should stick with Google but it poisons the > discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because > of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without > wasting some time. .75 > > 1101: .75 They do support it, they say something, it wasn't useful > information but they disclose their conflict of interest. The person > says they think Debian shouldn't stick with Google but it poisons the > discussion with faulty info, however, Debian caught it sooner because > of the bias warning and still makes the right decision but not without > wasting some time. .75 > > 0011: -.25 Same as 0010 but they would normally disclose their bias. > > 1011: -.25 Same as 1010 but they would normally disclose their bias. > > 0111: .75 They do not support it, they say something, it was useful > information, and they disclose their bias. The person says they think > Debian should stick with Google and the info is useful, but some time > is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but Debian > makes the correct choice .75 > > 1111: .75 They do support it, they say something, it was useful > information and they disclose their bias. The person says they think > Debian should split ties with Google and the info is useful, but some > time is lost checking if the info is still valid with the bias but > Debian make the correct choice. > > Now we take the averages using factory optimizations to analyze the > result: How did you determine the weights to assign each scenario? You haven't motivated or justified them. Consequently, even independently of "factory optimizations" (a Google search [naturally enough] suggests that this is not a term of art in game theory; if you can explain it in terms of, say, linear programming, I'll be fine) you can contrive any result you desire. [outcomes of arbitrary selected weights using unexplained algorithm elided] > > > Doing so is not a humblebrag. > > > > It can be gravy ladled on a juicy conflict-of-interest sirloin steak. > > Just your strawman opinion. You are James Damore and I claim my five pounds. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
