Re: Keep your word

guest271314 is a name/username that allows a level of anonymity, complete
or partial, as a user can use their actual name as part of a username and
when done, an actual name can be deduced from that.  A "real name" allows a
user to be actually identified, the name that people identify you by in
real life, that is the default expectation of those participating in W3C I
imagine, even if its not stated explicitly by W3C, it shouldn't need to be,
its common sense.  If you don't expect people to think/accept guest271314
is you real name in real life, then don't expect them to online.

Richard



On Thu, 17 Oct 2019 at 01:21, guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.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
>
>
> 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/
>>>
>>>