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

Re: Keep your word

From: Yoav Weiss <yoavweiss@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:43:32 +0300
Message-ID: <CAL5BFfXq5frmXqbL2oWGGHSdreKG=KpSdStPWAH2r2fCKD682A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
Cc: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Marcos Caceres <mcaceres@mozilla.com>, Jimmy <lotusdj1@gmail.com>, Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>, guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com>, Dom Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, public-wicg@w3.org
Indeed! Please refrain from replying to this thread. Administrative
grivences can be directed at https://github.com/wicg/admin/issues

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 7:03 AM Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> 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> 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 04:44:01 UTC

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