[OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran Hammer-Lahav

[SitG Admin]

At 1:35 AM +0200 12/15/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:
>>>Anybody has the right to remain anonymous (right, up to a certain 
>>>limit usually). But with it comes a price - apparently a price you 
>>>aren't willing to pay either.
>
>What price is that? "You can be anonymous, but we don't want you to 
>exist in our world - not to have to deal with you, or your ideas."?
>
>No, that's not what I said.

Thanks for clearing that up. I couldn't tell what price you meant.

>The price you have to pay for your choice of remaining anonymous is, 
>that you can't be a member apparently and therefore can't vote. What 
>I suggested is, take it as is, without complaining.

By the same token, if I have a problem with the current state of 
affairs in this country, I should just leave instead of trying to 
improve anything, much less suggest things are less than perfect? 
 From my communications with Bill Washburn, the impression I'd 
gathered was that he was *extremely* favourable to the idea of 
maintaining OIDF members' privacy. He was willing to work with me on 
this, even requesting my input on the draft Privacy Policy they had, 
and at one point suggesting that I could become an "invited expert" 
to the OIDF to help write it (an offer which I declined, since there 
was also no Privacy Policy for invited experts), so the understanding 
I have of this is that it is not at all a state of affairs that is 
not subject to revision. If this changes when the current Executive 
Director (still Bill Washburn) leaves office, I can then reevaluate 
the situation accordingly.

I contacted the Foundation about private/anonymous membership because 
it seemed like a worthwhile cause to give $100 to, not because I 
desired any say in things (i.e. voting). If such a membership becomes 
impossible, I can certainly continue to provide some assistance in 
the same way I, and other non-members in the community, have done so 
far ;)

>Or better, not in the current state of voting.

Perhaps when the voting process has matured, then?

>If you thought about changing that you'd have made your point 
>differently than to attack others and at this point.

Perhaps it's the voters more than the process in need of maturity: 
let us distinguish between criticizing the position of someone who is 
running for a seat on the Board, and attacking them personally. Are 
we so sensitive that any criticism feels like an attack?

>Maybe it wasn't slander, but it was certainly incitement not to vote 
>for a nominee!

Your choice of words leaves me uneasy; one of the meanings is 
"provoke", as in "inciting a riot", and while this does fit with how 
you seem to have taken my intent, there are other words that could 
have been used here - words lacking that connotation - which still 
accurately describe my anti-endorsement (such as "encourage").

>Why that was specially bad I explained in the previous mail already.

Do you mean this part?
"Calling publicly for an *anti-endorsement* of a candidate has 
nothing lost in our community"
I couldn't figure out exactly what you were trying to say there, so I 
just assumed that the second part was in line with the rest of your 
reply.

In any case, I figure that the 2-week election period (when 
candidates are *supposed* to be campaigning!) is the *best* time for 
those in the community to question them about their positions and 
point out problems with those positions (transparency, in public 
discussion).

>Any fame I've accrued is probably due to people making a big fuss 
>over what is just due process, in a community such as we 
>claim/aspire to be.
>
>Than please explain me with which right did you incite against a 
>nominee? Nobody has done that - not even those with voting rights. 
>That has nothing to do with due process my friend. Just for the 
>record, I'm not known to be specially gentle and diplomatic either, 
>but at least I use my name....

And say "my friend", reminiscent of another candidate who was not 
known for being especially gentle or diplomatic :)

Due process, during an (open) election, permits (and it should not be 
taken as a revocation of this right, that few here have exercised 
it!) discussion of candidates' positions, and expressing our thoughts 
and opinions upon them.

The strongest part of my anti-endorsement post was where I asserted 
that (the issue of) privacy should factor into the question of who to 
vote for - but I didn't say how much weight it should carry compared 
to other issues, and I urged folks to respect his position just as 
much as they thought he was respecting *them* (and others who would 
be part of the OIDF), so not only the question of how much it 
mattered but *also* the question of how much respect he had for 
members' privacy, was left for each individual voter to answer for 
their own part.

The entire post was basically an elaborate and very formal "I think 
that privacy matters (to the Foundation's reputation, to OpenID's by 
extension), and it may not matter to you as much as it does to me, 
and you may think this fellow would allow adequate privacy to anyone 
you really want in the Foundation, and there's no way to tell whether 
he's better or worse or all the same compared to other candidates (on 
this issue), but this looks bad *to me* and here's that information 
to help you make your decisions when it comes time to vote."

We haven't exactly been overwhelmed with such information, in this election ;)

-Shade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081214/df1df9cd/attachment-0002.htm>