Re: Keep your word

I'm not clear how your W3C account was approved; regardless, one of the
primary demands of participating in the W3C (even in Community Groups) is
abiding by the W3C's handling of intellectual property (primarily the Patent
Policy <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20170801/> and the
Contributor
License Agreement <https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/>),
and that requires using real names.  (This is not "discriminating based on
names" - it is needed in order to identify what IP commitments are made by
participants.) . There are many FAQ answers
<https://www.w3.org/2003/12/22-pp-faq> collected over the past twenty years
or so on this.  Without this commitment in place, we have to object to
accepting any contributions from an unknown source.

-Chris

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 6:11 AM guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com> wrote:

> We are waiting on legal advice to see if we can allow you to participate.
>> You haven't acted in good faith by using  "guest271314" (instead of your
>> real name) when asked to abide by the following ([4] in particular, and
>> you've violated [3] multiple times):
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/
> [2] https://www.w3.org/community/agreements/
> [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/
> [4] https://www.w3.org/community/agreements/cla
>
> Refute the claims that have not and am not acting in "good faith" by using
> the very distinctive real name guest271314. When you perform a DuckDuckGo
> or Google search for the "real name" "guest271314" you will see the body of
> work that have produced to from philosophy to coding to politics to
> history. You do not have to agree with the content. Yet you cannot refute
> any of the content posted by guest271314: due to the fact that all of the
> content posted is backed by primary sources, or are solutions to coding
> problems that wrote and tested meticulously by hand. Unless you make the
> claim that the world renown persons Mark Twain, John Wayne, Prince (RIP)
> were not acting in "good faith" you cannot make that claim here. You would
> have a problem with any "real name" that submit if it is not "John Smith".
> Do not discrimate based on names. Read the volumes of content that have
> posted online covering a wide range of topics. Am not keenly interested in
> attribution or being "chummy" with people. Am interested in facts, direct
> communication without rancor or ingratiation, and solving challenging Web
> issues while advancing the art to the degree capable of doing so. The
> autograph /guest271314/ must suffice for a signature.
>
> Repudiate the broad claim that have "violated [3] multiple times". Have
> not been provided any itemized list of alleged violations which can appeal
> word by word and line item by line item. If there is an assertion of rule
> violation there needs to be a corresponding document listing the
> allegations and a reference to the appeals procedure so that can refute the
> claims on the record up to and through arbitration if necessary. Simply
> referring to a code of conduct document and making broad blanket
> allegations of purported violations of without clearly indicating what
> specific violations are being alleged raises ethical violation in itself.
>
> If your legal personnel - or you - have any questions they have permission
> to email <guest271314@gmail.com> to ask those questions directly.
>
> Kind regards,
> /guest271314/
>
>