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

Re: Keep your word

From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 21:01:57 -0700
Message-id: <8A35C779-2C4D-4EA9-BE85-4BFAADF02816@apple.com>
Cc: Jimmy <lotusdj1@gmail.com>, Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>, guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com>, Dom Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-wicg@w3.org
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Marcos Caceres <mcaceres@mozilla.com>
Hi chairs,

Could you please move this administrative issue to some private discussion? I don’t think the discussion of banning or reinstatement of one person’s account needs to take place on public-wicg@w3.org <mailto:public-wicg@w3.org>.

Everyone: We have a code of conduct: https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/

- R. Niwa

> On Oct 16, 2019, at 8:00 PM, Jimmy <lotusdj1@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Seriously?!
> My email is being spammed for 2 days over some scorned lovers spat and you're telling me to use respectful language?!
> How about you get control over the email distribution and stop spamming us with some kindergarten bull crap.
> I joined this group hoping it was full of professionals moving the web forward. Now I find my email assaulted with your petty nonsense. 
> If this is what being a member of the W3 has devolved into then please, remove my email. 
> If however, you want to get back to being professionals and carrying yourselves like professionals, end this childish squabble and act accordingly. 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
> Date: 10/16/19 10:40 PM (GMT-05:00)
> 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
> Subject: Re: Keep your word
> 
> Please use respectful language.  This is your only warning.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019, 7:29 PM Jimmy <lotusdj1@gmail.com <mailto:lotusdj1@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Are you people serious?! Jesus christ. Shut the fuck up. 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com <mailto:richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>>
> Date: 10/16/19 9:16 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com <mailto:guest271314@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com <mailto:cwilso@google.com>>, Dom Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org <mailto:dom@w3.org>>, public-wicg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/ <https://www.w3.org/community/wicg/>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/community/agreements/ <https://www.w3.org/community/agreements/>
> [3] https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/ <https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/>
> [4] https://www.w3.org/community/agreements/cla <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 <mailto:guest271314@gmail.com>> to ask those questions directly.
> 
> Kind regards,
> /guest271314/
> 


Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 04:02:16 UTC

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