W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wicg@w3.org > October 2019

Re: Keep your word

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 19:40:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJK2wqXei0pYtb+O1Fgvwzxt71-GDLCo0c74bCCJs1WJ5fTTzQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jimmy <lotusdj1@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>, guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com>, Dom Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-wicg@w3.org
Please use respectful language.  This is your only warning.

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:29 PM Jimmy <lotusdj1@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you people serious?! Jesus christ. Shut the fuck up.
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>
> Date: 10/16/19 9:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Dom Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>,
> public-wicg@w3.org
> Subject: 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/
>>>>
>>>>
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 02:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 25 January 2020 21:18:04 UTC