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


Hello.

Did provide a "real name". Agreed to each of the "intellectual property"
provisions proferred on the joining forms. Am not interested in
intellectual property rights, copyright, patent "ownership". You folks can
have that. Agreed to the proffered terms anyway. Am interested in testing
code relevant to specifications, and to an appreciable degree, contributing
to specifications via testing what is actually implemented. Am not
concerned with any "attribution". The commitment is in place. Are you
stating that you are expelling a member from the institution based on a
name? Can you kindly cite the controlling definition of "real name" in your
internal documents which you are referring to, where it states that
/guest271314/ is not a valid "real name"?

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:48 PM Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> 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/
>>
>>