Re: Keep your word

For those who did not bother to read the full T7-9 text, I would simply
like to point out the use of the N word.

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:48 AM guest271314 <guest271314@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.
>
> That statements invalidates the entire premise of the institution and what
> it does. Yes, definitions need to be written clearly and unambiguously. You
> cannot ex post facto insert a definition for "real name" that evidently
> does not exist based on the fact not one member or administrative official
> has been able to cite the W3C document where the term "real name" is
> defined which they or you are relying on. The same logic applies to the
> specifications that W3C and subsidiaries write. If the language is not in
> the actual spcification there is no reference for a claim that "common
> sense" is then applicable. You folks need to write it down and publish the
> definitions else you are merely attempting to insert your own opinion into
> the document, utterly lacking any reference to a primary source. "common
> sense" does not apply to the specifications W3C drafts and publishes, nor
> does that opinion apply here: cite the primary source that you are relying
> on for your claims.
>
> Do not rely on what people or institutions "think/accept" here. Am
> well-suited to making own determinations based on facts supported by
> primary sources, not speculation or opinion. Did not ask for your
> "acceptance" nor what you "think". Responded to the suggestion to join WICG
> from the WICG Chair and did just that. Filled out the forms provided,
> accepted the terms. That is it. Now, ex post facto, disgruntled individuals
> are dismissing the fact that followed through with the suggested action,
> which included creating a W3C account, and joining WICG, referencing
> "common sense" yet appear to be incapable of facing the fact that it is an
> official W3C website that visited, a W3C form that filled out, and
> apparently a W3C machine that processed the forms.
>
> > A "real name" allows a user to be actually identified
>
> "identified" precisely how? Does W3C want a DNA sample or birth
> certificate to join? What does that ultimately prove? As previously stated,
> if you want to know the "identity" of guest271314 you need only read the
> published content attributed to that "real name"
>
> - https://stackoverflow.com/users/2801559/guest271314
> - https://askubuntu.com/users/92739/
> - https://english.stackexchange.com/users/330272/
> - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/users/46230/
> - https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/users/33042/
> - https://history.stackexchange.com/users/28734/
> - https://law.stackexchange.com/users/14781/
> - https://biology.stackexchange.com/users/49807/
> - https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/users/31257/
> - https://math.stackexchange.com/users/138305/
> - https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/users/276974/
> - https://interpersonal.stackexchange.com/users/9673/
> - https://politics.stackexchange.com/users/21216/
> - https://twitter.com/guest271314
>
> What you will find are primary sources; facts; not wild speculation nor
> any kowtowing to any claim of "common sense" where the concept of a "real
> name" is based on the "western" tradition of subjugating individuals into
> convenient desciptors after forcing them to set aside their original
> customs for a "Christian" "real name" in "residential schools" if they were
> permitted to read or write at all by within the prisoner of war camps now
> called "states", else be lynched or otherwise dominated by military might
> and western academia for having the mere audacity to "think" and not
> "accept" narratives that were deliberately designed and implemented -
> similar to the W3C specification development regime - in order to control
> individuals, peoples, and entire cultures.
>
> When the replies state: "real name", the simple fact is the "real name"
> was intentionally taken away from at least 330,000 prisoners of war
> trafficked to the Colonies and later the U.S., 8 million to Brazil, where
> at least in the U.S. the vast majority, if not all of the ancestors of
> those prisoners of war, termed "slaves" by western acamedia, do not have
> any knowledge whatsoever about their "real name", real nation, real
> culture. For those people there is no immediate answer to the question of
> "what is your 'real name'". A small fraction might have been given a name
> other than a "Christian" name, and for them such a name might be very
> significant, meaning those persons are truly free to name themselves
> whatever they decide to, not only "John Smith", which is entirely foreign
> to their stolen legacy. The evidence of the brainwashing is the fact that
> the vast majority of the ancestors of prisoners of war in the western
> hemisphere do not have any knowledge of their native tongue: they were
> FORCED to "speak English", FORCED to take on the name "boy", "nigger",
> "negro", "squaw", "injun", "chief", "Washington" - and still are today. If
> they do not master the equivocal English language, they shall be prisoners
> to that regime as well. The next question is "where are you from" as if you
> are "from" "here", and own the world and free thought as well. That is how
> would-be domineering institutions become when not called on their nonsense
> of trying to invent defintions of terms on-the-fly when the real intention
> is simply to deny membership because you do not like the tone of or have
> some other undisclosed bias towards and individual. In this case, unless
> any of you folks can cite the primary source you are relying on for the
> term "real name", you need to stop using that term, as it has no definitive
> meaning.
>
> Therefore, yes, W3C needs to cite specifically where the term "real name"
> is defined in the institutions' publications. None of the links to patent
> and copyright psudeo-legal documents contain that term - yet this is what
> you folks are actually attempting to state is the reason for not lifting
> the ban, and joining WICG? Since that is the case have no choice but to
> make it clear your word now does not have any merit whatsoever. Though that
> status can still be correctly by W3C/WICG by abandoning this line of
> attempting to deny membership in WICG and not lifting the ban - as your
> Chair signed to do.
>
> Instead of attempting to insert language into W3C documents that does not
> exist, fix your mistakes, if the W3C institution really needs gov'ment
> names, then that needs to be as clear as the specifications that W3C
> publishes. Simple: Keep your word.
>
> Kind regards,
> /guest271314/
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:16 AM Richard Dunne <richarddunnebsc@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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/
>>>>>
>>>>>