You are of course correct that doctors, lawyers, and other protected professions have to submit themselves to (somewhat) extralegal mechanisms.
Which brings me back to the earlier question you seemingly keep avoiding: how do you define "community" and "membership"? Is a community a) something which is as organized as Debian; or b) any group, and they cannot be left loose. Or is it "something in-between," which you will undoubtedly define?
When I picked up Debian as an extreme example of a "community," and mentioned the high costs (and low participation) it engenders, I did not foresee that your next move would be to pick something even more extreme.
The bar, AMA, etc. are professional associations. They exist, and are tolerated by the legislature, 1/ for historical reasons (if not intense lobbying), and 2/ because they are very careful not to do anything which may be considered amateurish. They operate at great expense (membership fees are all but trivial), within well-defined frameworks which are supervised by the rest of society, and with rules which change at a glacial pace.
Moreover, the first things one learns when first considering such a domain of activity is that: the occupation is protected; the state delegates some of its monopoly to a single association (usually); the association is handled and supervised by responsible professionals which are deeply invested; a member can be hurt by the association, and its judgment may be, in effect, final; the rules won't change randomly or quickly; being invested—professionally and financially—in that association will grant one some special and serious privileges.
I don't suppose what you call a "community" is a group of people which has made the conscious choice of submitting themselves, "for life," to the authority and fees of a professional association, in exchange for a monopoly in the domain and some serious privileges?
(Note that I am *not* saying that ours should *not* become a protected profession with mandatory membership into such an association; that is an entirely different question.)
> Participation in Ubuntu is contingent on adhering to the Ubuntu Code of Conduct.
Ubuntu is the exclusive property of a private company; the rules are written and checked by lawyers, which are themselves financed by private funds. Those lawyers will advise Canonical to rest on firm legal grounds for anything nontrivial. Those are essentially part of Canonical's "Terms of Service."
I don't suppose such a private organization is what you call a "community"?
(Moreover, I am pretty sure that you will find that any "participation" in Ubuntu whose magnitude exceeds occasional drive-by patches delivered by amateurs which could be coerced to sign the CLA is governed by an ad hoc contract undersigned by at least two legal persons.
Canonical may try and negotiate adherence to the CoC as a clause—which they probably do, and which I would undoubtedly do in such a situation—but enforcement of that clause, and "punishment," is backed by "contract law" and the judicial system.)
You have been vocal about Ubuntu's CLA in the past. Participation in Ubuntu is contingent on entering into a legal contract with Canonical; this is not by chance.
Is a "community" something you enter into a legal contract with?
-D
P.-S. — "CoC"s are flourishing right now. I recently heard of two big French companies which include "CoC"s as clauses in the contracts they force on their small suppliers.
While I recognize the positive effects this may have, I don't think that relegating "basic decency" to ad hoc contracts drafted by powerful entities is how you achieve social justice; I see it as a symptom of society breaking up rather than a "win."
I would rather try and advance our "enlightened" society, backed by a democratic state and separated powers, than move towards a medieval landscape where protection and "justice" is assured by the "Lord" of some "community."
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: "Discipline"? "Members"? What kind of "community" are you talking about?
Date: 2017-12-22 08:16 am (UTC)You are of course correct that doctors, lawyers, and other protected professions have to submit themselves to (somewhat) extralegal mechanisms.
Which brings me back to the earlier question you seemingly keep avoiding: how do you define "community" and "membership"? Is a community a) something which is as organized as Debian; or b) any group, and they cannot be left loose. Or is it "something in-between," which you will undoubtedly define?
When I picked up Debian as an extreme example of a "community," and mentioned the high costs (and low participation) it engenders, I did not foresee that your next move would be to pick something even more extreme.
The bar, AMA, etc. are professional associations. They exist, and are tolerated by the legislature, 1/ for historical reasons (if not intense lobbying), and 2/ because they are very careful not to do anything which may be considered amateurish. They operate at great expense (membership fees are all but trivial), within well-defined frameworks which are supervised by the rest of society, and with rules which change at a glacial pace.
Moreover, the first things one learns when first considering such a domain of activity is that: the occupation is protected; the state delegates some of its monopoly to a single association (usually); the association is handled and supervised by responsible professionals which are deeply invested; a member can be hurt by the association, and its judgment may be, in effect, final; the rules won't change randomly or quickly; being invested—professionally and financially—in that association will grant one some special and serious privileges.
I don't suppose what you call a "community" is a group of people which has made the conscious choice of submitting themselves, "for life," to the authority and fees of a professional association, in exchange for a monopoly in the domain and some serious privileges?
(Note that I am *not* saying that ours should *not* become a protected profession with mandatory membership into such an association; that is an entirely different question.)
> Participation in Ubuntu is contingent on adhering to the Ubuntu Code of Conduct.
Ubuntu is the exclusive property of a private company; the rules are written and checked by lawyers, which are themselves financed by private funds. Those lawyers will advise Canonical to rest on firm legal grounds for anything nontrivial. Those are essentially part of Canonical's "Terms of Service."
I don't suppose such a private organization is what you call a "community"?
(Moreover, I am pretty sure that you will find that any "participation" in Ubuntu whose magnitude exceeds occasional drive-by patches delivered by amateurs which could be coerced to sign the CLA is governed by an ad hoc contract undersigned by at least two legal persons.
Canonical may try and negotiate adherence to the CoC as a clause—which they probably do, and which I would undoubtedly do in such a situation—but enforcement of that clause, and "punishment," is backed by "contract law" and the judicial system.)
You have been vocal about Ubuntu's CLA in the past. Participation in Ubuntu is contingent on entering into a legal contract with Canonical; this is not by chance.
Is a "community" something you enter into a legal contract with?
-D
P.-S. — "CoC"s are flourishing right now. I recently heard of two big French companies which include "CoC"s as clauses in the contracts they force on their small suppliers.
While I recognize the positive effects this may have, I don't think that relegating "basic decency" to ad hoc contracts drafted by powerful entities is how you achieve social justice; I see it as a symptom of society breaking up rather than a "win."
I would rather try and advance our "enlightened" society, backed by a democratic state and separated powers, than move towards a medieval landscape where protection and "justice" is assured by the "Lord" of some "community."