- From: Yoav Weiss <yoavweiss@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:43:32 +0300
- 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
- Message-ID: <CAL5BFfXq5frmXqbL2oWGGHSdreKG=KpSdStPWAH2r2fCKD682A@mail.gmail.com>
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