Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking

have been made. Technical rhetoric is about technical work, and frequently includes a presentation of the code, a corollary written statement, or a justification as to why no change should be made.
    These debates happen on IRC, bug-tracking software, and mailing lists; on IRC, the process of argumentation is informal. Developers usually seek the advice of others and move on to do the work. Many times such advice seeking produces robust debate, and when there are especially pronounced differences of opinion, this transforms civil heartiness into vibrant, sometimes-vicious flame wars—outbursts of dissent that are characterized by inflammatory language or direct accusations of incompetence. The Debian bug-tracking system is another site where technical jousting happens, and since there is a formal system that allows developers to rate bugs according to a spectrum of severity from a wish list to severe, these debates can be tracked more systematically. The attention a given bug received can be easily tracked by the length of debate contained therein along with the multiple reassignments of different levels of severity, closing, and reopening. Some bug debates have reached legendary status because of multiple reassignments of severity, their length, and their lack of closure. It is often during such contestations over technical questions that developers most explicitly raise issues of authority, and renegotiate the lines between democracy, consensus, and meritocracy that define their system of governance. 18
    Two Moments of Ethical Cultivation
    In terms of governance alone, Debian exhibits an extraordinarily complex moral and technical environment. It should come as no surprise that the way new members integrate themselves within this community, and learn the proper codes of conduct and procedures by which to contribute effectively tothe project as well as gain the trust of other developers, is not a simple one. Although many prefer coding over organizational building, Debian developers have nonetheless concocted an interesting social solution to this problem of integration and trust building—the NMP. This process addresses problems following from growth: how to build trust and encourage accountability in the space composed solely of bits and bytes along with a growing number of participants.
    Building Trust through the NMP
    Essentially a gateway for new members, the NMP defines what is morally and technically expected of them. As such, it works powerfully as a centripetal force of ethical enculturation. It is the framework within which new members first confront the sociopolitical and organizational milieu of Debian. This process represents the first time that some new members meet another Debian developer in person or “ethically voice” their commitment to free software through the prolific writing that is required of them.
    Already explicitly committed to a vision of free software, Debian is to some degree a self-selecting organization, unlikely to attract programmers with a staunch commitment to upholding the current status of intellectual property law. But the NMP is unique insofar as it requires prospective Debian developers not only to study detailed texts on the ethics of free software (such as the GPL, Social Contract, and DFSG) but also to produce their own texts on the subject. Through the NMP, developers produce ethically relevant discourse. The extensive narrative work of the NMP makes Debian’s codified values personally relevant, and this in turn breeds social commitment to the project.
    As Debian grew quickly, the project found itself in the midst of a crisis that peaked between 1998 and 1999. New members were being admitted at rates faster than the project’s ad hoc social systems could integrate them. Some longtime developers grew skeptical of the quality of incoming developers, complaining that they introduced more bugs into the system than helpful contributions. The populism of open membership began to come under attack. Some developers suggested that Debian had reached its saturation point. 19
    In response to these problems, the Debian account manager (who creates accounts for new members) waged a silent revolt by halting the processing of new maintainer accounts—essentially preventing any new members from being able to join the project. This move eventually led the account manager to officially stop accepting members under the informal procedures. Instead, the manager proposed formalized