<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran
Hammer-Lahav</title></head><body>
<div>At 1:35 AM +0200 12/15/08, Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.) wrote:</div>
<div>>><tt>></tt>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.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>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."?</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>No, that's not what I said.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Thanks for clearing that up. I couldn't tell what price you
meant.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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 ;)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>Or better, not in the current state of voting.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Perhaps when the voting process has matured, then?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>If you thought about changing that you'd have made your point
differently than to attack others and at this point.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>Maybe it wasn't slander, but it was certainly incitement not
to vote for a nominee!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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").</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>Why that was specially bad I explained in the previous mail
already.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Do you mean this part?</div>
<div>"Calling publicly for an *anti-endorsement* of a candidate
has nothing lost in our community"</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>>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.</div>
<div>></div>
<div>>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....</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>And say "my friend", reminiscent of another candidate
who was not known for being especially gentle or diplomatic :)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>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."</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>We haven't exactly been overwhelmed with such information, in
this election ;)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-Shade</div>
</body>
</html>