Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking

emerges out of anarrative mode. “This objectification of the norms to which one is committed frequently,” Cover (1993, 145; emphasis added) observes, “perhaps always entails a narrative—a story of how the law, now object, came to be, and more importantly,
how it came to be one’s own
.” This is precisely what occurs during the NMP. Developers affirm their commitment to the principles enshrined in their key charters largely by way of a specific gravitational pull: the force of their life experiences is brought to bear directly on these documents, thereby rendering them objectively real, but in a way that subjectively matters within one’s personal orbit of life experiences. This is followed by a second move, which betrays subjective personalization. Developers voice the broader importance of these principles and clarify the social implications of their commitments. Neither purely subjective nor objective accounts, these narratives form a bridge between them.
    Moreover, the narratives are at the basis of temporal movement and personal transformation. They take people to new locations, and past, present, and future come together in a moment of ethical assessment. The past is weaved into the present, and the voicing of commitment in the application becomes the path toward a future within the project. It is a step that brings a developer closer to a new social localization within a larger ethical and technical project of developers who have also undergone the same reflective exercise.
    Through this reconfiguration of temporality, developers after the NMP can be said to share at least three connections: they are technologically linked through the web of trust that requires them to meet at least one other developer; they share the experience of a common ritual of entry; and finally, they have started to learn a Debian-specific vocabulary with which to situate themselves within this world, formulate the broader implications of freedom, and continue the conversation on freedom, licensing, and their craft, with a wider body of developers.
    Although the philosophy aspect of the NMP often results in voluminous expository output, it is by no means the bulk of the process; in fact, it is only half of step three of a five-step process. The other half of the philosophy step is known as procedures, in which applicants must demonstrate what the general policies are as well as their ability to perform whatever individual responsibilities they wish to take on within the project itself. Once the philosophy and procedures step is deemed appropriately passed, the applicant moves on to the rigorous tasks and skills step. This step confirms that the applicant has the necessary skills to carry out the job that they will take on as a Debian developer. These tests vary depending on what the applicant will be doing, but typically involve many technical questions. The overall process generally results in several dozen pages of exhaustive responses along with many back-and-forth discussions and clarifications over months (and sometimes up to a year) with the assigned application manager.
    If accepted into the project, some developers slip into relative obscurity. Some do not actively participate in Debian’s dynamic culture of debate anddialogue. Some follow only as spectators, while others could care less about what are perceived as overly dramatic conversations and concentrate wholly on their technical contributions. But for most developers, in ethical terms, the NMP is a highly condensed version of what flows and follows in the social metabolism of the project, though in a slightly altered version. The narrative work that transforms codified norms into meaningful ones continues within the project itself, and the knowledge gained during the process is necessary for newcomers to integrate effectively into the project.
    Interactions among developers in the ongoing debates tend to be less concerned with the nature of the principles they committed to in the NMP than with the
implications
of these principles. In other words, common principles start to diverge into a multiplicity of newly generated ethical meanings, some of which alter the basic procedures and structures of the project. Even if their interpretations of principles diverge, developers usually refer to the charters or shared precepts in arguments, and as such, these precepts are kept actively relevant. Divergence and disagreement is thus the basis for moral coexistence. I