Luke you are spamming (which is worse than trolling) posting links to your crowdfunding page. I don't think we have to read your mind to tell you are looking for attention and not actually as interested or fundamentally knowledgeable about the success of this project as you mean to let on. Your input has definitely been noted, and if anyone else feels we should make the grin CoC more vague and less actionable, we will use your list as inspiration.
As far as not having spam in my inbox is good, and spamming my inbox is harmful, you could prove the strength of your Code of Honour by taking your vibrant (and unecessarily patronising) tone elsewhere, for example a personal blog where you can outline your thoughts, which we may read at our leisure at a later date after you have wrinkled out all the irons in them. We all know your website. Open hardware is super cool, and actually an increasing part of the emerging set of goals grin is working toward, and it's in no one's best interest to push you away when you have such specific expertise and are already part of the community. But please, write a blog post with your thoughts, and continue to watch and see how our CoC plays out, and if it fails, link us to your blog post. If it goes smoothly despite your misgivings, it would be great to have your insights into open hardware design for future grin ASICs. Best, 0x Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, September 16, 2018 6:18 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <l...@lkcl.net> wrote: > crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.spam.com/eoma68 > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Justin Zheng justin.zh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Luke, maybe write a draft CoC that you think should be implemented? > > ah, thank you: a question. it's very simple: the code of honour > (honor if you use U.S.) spelling. it's four lines long: > > - always do good > - never do harm > - the code applies 100% of the time > - everyone knows the code. > > that's it. that's all there is to it. it's extremely simple, is > rhythmic, both characteristics that make it extremely easy to > memorise, and has absolutely nothing that could possibly be toxic > about it. > > there is one "downside" of such a deceptively-simple code: should > incidents occur, it requires people to think about what the > definitions of "good" and "harm" actually are. ways to "deal" with > that are where mistakes get made, in "unpacking" the definitions of > "good" (which can never be complete) and "harm", which turn into the > most awful and dangerously toxic (and never complete) "proscribed > lists of behaviours". > > thank you for - at last - asking a question. > > l. > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble > Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
