RE: Threat of Code of Conduct Violation (was Re: Goals and Requirements for DID Method Standardization?)

MWH>> See below.



-----Original Message-----
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:03 AM
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Cc: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>; Kim Hamilton Duffy <kim@identity.foundation>
Subject: Threat of Code of Conduct Violation (was Re: Goals and Requirements for DID Method Standardization?)



On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:29 AM Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net<mailto:mwherman@parallelspace.net>> wrote:

> None of what you've said below has been ratified by the WG membership.



I didn't say it had been... we're just starting; expecting anything to be ratified after the first meeting is not an expectation anyone should have at this point. My emails were my interpretation based on what was discussed in the first meeting to help people that were not there understand what happened during the first meeting. I attempted to summarize the meeting as I saw it. Others can provide their own interpretations.



MWH>> You presented your " Requirements for DID Method Standardization" as a supposed baseline set of requirements. It is not.

MWH>> You further emphasized this "baseline" point in the following paragraph where you asked people to add any missing requirements (to your baseline).  This approach is inappropriate, overhanded, and needs to be neutered.

MWH>> "I know I'm missing many more requirement ideas, so what are they? What do you feel we should include as requirements as we go through the selection process for which DID Methods (and their features) should be standardized?"



> All that has been requested asked for (by Kim in the last meeting) is

> for the members to propose steps for moving forward



MWH>> In your typical style spanning years and years, you take someone's text and truncate/abbreviate/manupulate it for serve your own needs.  Here's what my full statement said:

MANU>> " All that has been requested asked for (by Kim in the last meeting) is for the members to propose steps for moving forward here (nothing more): https://github.com/decentralized-identity/did-methods/issues"

MWH>> This is another CoC issue (#2?)

MWH>> In addition, you most always delete the previous context of the thread making it difficult for anyone ready your emails to full understand and appreciate the full and complete context of the issue - tilting/twisting the discussion in your favour.



Yep, which is what I did.



> In addition, I believe Markus's role as the co-chair is to report on progress. The rest of us (including you and I) are just members.



Members can provide their view of what they believe happens in a meeting and propose next steps that they believe to be helpful in establishing consensus. Gathering requirements from the community are among those things that help establish consensus. We have used ranked choice polls to make decisions over the past decade in this and other communities.



MWH>> Manu, for years and years you have exerted your heavy-handed influence over CCG and most of its WGs.  It's been documented by myself and others over the years. Here's one example: https://hyperonomy.com/2019/04/09/clique-speak/




> I'm deeply disappointed in seeing this email - to the point where it may be a code-of-conduct violation.



Threatening action such as this for actions performed in good faith,

MWH>> Based on years of 1. similar experiences with you, 2. this specific context, 3. your behaviors demonstrated over the past couple weeks, and 4. this CoC claim, I question your "good faith" with full justification.



MANU>> ..as well as the sorts of legal threats you've been engaged in for the past several weeks (threatening legal action over trademarks which you do not have) establish a pattern of behavior that is troubling.

MWH>> CCG members, what Manu has stated in the above sentence is an outright lie.

MWH>> First, I am well within my rights to validly claim and contest copyright infringement with respect to "did:tdw" and "Trust DID Web". Reference: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/pull/581#issuecomment-2462828639


MWH>> To try to deny me that right or to try to intimidate, threaten, and/or retaliate is a 3rd CoC violation.

MWH>> I have never threatened any legal action.  Manu's claim is a lie. I have claimed trademark infringement. The specific wording I used was:

MWH>> " I have a commercial objection to the approval of did:tdw. "tdw" overlaps significantly with the Trusted Digital Web, the parent project of the Web 7.0 Ultraweb." Reference: https://github.com/w3c/did-extensions/issues/586#issue-2641739874


MWH>> On the other hand, Manu it was yourself who became very heavy-handed, threatening, intimidating, and retaliatory in the DID WG meeting of (I believe) November 14th when in the open Zoom call you threatened me with the size of Digital Bizarre's "internal legal council" as well as the size "internal legal councils" of the W3C, other government/defense contractor partners, etc. Everyone on the call is a witness to this unacceptable behavior. This unacceptable behavior is included in CoC claim #3.

MWH>> Further, the issue has been resolved reasonably amicably in the Steven’s last DIF WG call.



MWH>> To chastise someone for initiating a CoC claim is also a CoC violation. Reference item #23: https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/  This is Coc claim #4.



If you would like to file a code of conduct violation, please do.



MWH>> I have and will further submit the above additional 3 claims.



Best regards,

Michael Herman

Web 7.0 Foundation



-- manu



--

Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/


Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.

https://www.digitalbazaar.com/