Keagan McClelland [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11 🗒️ Summary of this message: A message ...
📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11
🗒️ Summary of this message: A message advises Jorge to consider how his emails will be perceived by others and communicate in a way that seeks common ground and demonstrates good faith.
📝 Original message:
Jorge,
I invite you to consider reading your emails before you send them. During
this reread, I specifically encourage you to do so with the frame of mind
of how your words will be read and understood by others on this mailing
list.
The people on this list may have varying levels of familiarity with the
drama you are referencing. If we consider the technical dispositions and
the critical thinking capacity of the typical reader of this list, it is
overwhelmingly probable that someone reading your note is going to be
suspicious of your purely case due to the overt antagonism that is embedded
in every line. After reading your note, I am hard pressed to imagine that
anyone would come away from reading it with more sympathy for your
case, which I believe is the opposite of the intended outcome. If you wish
to affect change, should communicate in a way that recruits allies, seeks
common ground, and demonstrates good faith. Without that you will only
create more enemies, and feel like you are being "unfairly" victimized by
everyone you interact with here.
I am generally assuming that you are interested in getting people to see
things from your point of view and it pains me to see you further entrench
yourself in a situation that you clearly do not wish to be in. Realize that
you have the power to change this and elicit greater sympathy and
cooperation simply by taking greater care in seeing how your words get
understood by others.
Keags
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:53 AM Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
> Pressumption of innocence?
> Right to defend yourself?
>
> Wow, that sounds amazing, but, for example, wouldn't me defendibg myself
> from jeremy rubin be offtopic like...pretty much everywhere?
> Not sure you're familiar with that story, certainly you didn't hear my
> side of the story, did you?
> Where would it be fine for me to defend myself?
> I don't want to keep cosing bitcoin anymore, novody would review my PRs
> anyway once jeremy made sure everyone thought I am evil. Or perhaps I'm
> paranoid. Anyway, I would juat like to find the right venue to clean my
> name or at least be allowed to try. If that venue exists at all, that is.
>
> Personally, I feel extremely censored.
> I also feel I've been judged unfairly and margibalized by many.
> If it was because of my mistakes and not because jeremy and others lied
> about me behind my back, well, I would like to know at least.
>
> Am I really asking that much?
> I'm surprised at how very few people are in favor of the american first
> amendment, btw.
>
> I know, I know. Offtopic. Everywhere. Every time.
> If something it's offtopic everywhere, that's a censored taboo, I think.
>
> Therefore I challenge to a public debate somewhere. For me to defend
> myself and for him to defend himself too (if that's possible).
> I know it's never going to happen, but I want to make sure it is known
> that it is because of him, I'm more than ready to defend myself against
> him. Is he?
>
> He can call me a nazi and even though I'm not one (I'm not even racist),
> it is not so easy to sue for defamation in international jurisdictions.
> Imagine if I called him a pederast (kethuboth 11b, sanhesrin 69b) or a
> cannibal (samhedrin 64a) without giving him a chance to defend himself.
> Wouldn't that be nasty?
> I want him to be able to defend himself too, or at least try it.
>
> Now, moderators, censor this email for being offtopic and prove my point.
> Jeremy will still get the email and I bet he won't want a public debate.
> But I'm biased because I think he is guilty. Just like jeffrey epstein.
> Is jeremy rubin a mossad agent?
> Is there any reason to think so?
> Or are these just rummors?
> He should have a chance to try to clean his name, in my opinion. Again,
> just like jeffrey epstein.
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023, 17:57 Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> > Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately
>> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears
>> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them
>> once a week.
>>
>> As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of
>> this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of "off-topic". I had and
>> I still have the concerns of "frivolous legal claims" being used between
>> bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality
>> of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e
>> code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal
>> right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between
>> Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of
>> the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself "If this worries you
>> too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?" [0].
>>
>> When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in
>> a situation of conflict of interests or "moral hazards", or even the
>> appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including
>> the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the
>> "free choice" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring
>> in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be
>> submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private
>> elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a
>> morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of
>> US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history
>> of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].
>>
>> Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels
>> constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging
>> ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants'
>> rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those
>> communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels
>> are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting
>> principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a
>> balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.
>>
>> And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility
>> for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial
>> process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the
>> defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal
>> separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and
>> the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow
>> what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself,
>> from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting
>> or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear
>> affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of
>> innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions
>> conserved.
>>
>> I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign "bad
>> intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences,
>> knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual
>> elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather "grey". People can
>> be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures
>> with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities
>> for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and
>> moral principles to apply in the present case.
>>
>> Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for
>> level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex
>> topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from
>> the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin
>> and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the
>> discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private
>> elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there
>> is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is
>> made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.
>>
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>>
>> [0]
>> https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md
>> [2]
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/
>>
>> Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev <
>> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately
>>> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears
>>> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them
>>> once a week.
>>>
>>> Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place
>>> for discussions?
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei < niftynei at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively
>>> new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed
>>> on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in
>>> public.
>>>
>>> Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and
>>> github issues/PRs.
>>>
>>> The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options
>>> considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for
>>> new participants to contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>>> Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a
>>> good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public
>>> communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>> ~ nifty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/c3c983e8/attachment-0001.html>;
🗒️ Summary of this message: A message advises Jorge to consider how his emails will be perceived by others and communicate in a way that seeks common ground and demonstrates good faith.
📝 Original message:
Jorge,
I invite you to consider reading your emails before you send them. During
this reread, I specifically encourage you to do so with the frame of mind
of how your words will be read and understood by others on this mailing
list.
The people on this list may have varying levels of familiarity with the
drama you are referencing. If we consider the technical dispositions and
the critical thinking capacity of the typical reader of this list, it is
overwhelmingly probable that someone reading your note is going to be
suspicious of your purely case due to the overt antagonism that is embedded
in every line. After reading your note, I am hard pressed to imagine that
anyone would come away from reading it with more sympathy for your
case, which I believe is the opposite of the intended outcome. If you wish
to affect change, should communicate in a way that recruits allies, seeks
common ground, and demonstrates good faith. Without that you will only
create more enemies, and feel like you are being "unfairly" victimized by
everyone you interact with here.
I am generally assuming that you are interested in getting people to see
things from your point of view and it pains me to see you further entrench
yourself in a situation that you clearly do not wish to be in. Realize that
you have the power to change this and elicit greater sympathy and
cooperation simply by taking greater care in seeing how your words get
understood by others.
Keags
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:53 AM Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> wrote:
> Pressumption of innocence?
> Right to defend yourself?
>
> Wow, that sounds amazing, but, for example, wouldn't me defendibg myself
> from jeremy rubin be offtopic like...pretty much everywhere?
> Not sure you're familiar with that story, certainly you didn't hear my
> side of the story, did you?
> Where would it be fine for me to defend myself?
> I don't want to keep cosing bitcoin anymore, novody would review my PRs
> anyway once jeremy made sure everyone thought I am evil. Or perhaps I'm
> paranoid. Anyway, I would juat like to find the right venue to clean my
> name or at least be allowed to try. If that venue exists at all, that is.
>
> Personally, I feel extremely censored.
> I also feel I've been judged unfairly and margibalized by many.
> If it was because of my mistakes and not because jeremy and others lied
> about me behind my back, well, I would like to know at least.
>
> Am I really asking that much?
> I'm surprised at how very few people are in favor of the american first
> amendment, btw.
>
> I know, I know. Offtopic. Everywhere. Every time.
> If something it's offtopic everywhere, that's a censored taboo, I think.
>
> Therefore I challenge to a public debate somewhere. For me to defend
> myself and for him to defend himself too (if that's possible).
> I know it's never going to happen, but I want to make sure it is known
> that it is because of him, I'm more than ready to defend myself against
> him. Is he?
>
> He can call me a nazi and even though I'm not one (I'm not even racist),
> it is not so easy to sue for defamation in international jurisdictions.
> Imagine if I called him a pederast (kethuboth 11b, sanhesrin 69b) or a
> cannibal (samhedrin 64a) without giving him a chance to defend himself.
> Wouldn't that be nasty?
> I want him to be able to defend himself too, or at least try it.
>
> Now, moderators, censor this email for being offtopic and prove my point.
> Jeremy will still get the email and I bet he won't want a public debate.
> But I'm biased because I think he is guilty. Just like jeffrey epstein.
> Is jeremy rubin a mossad agent?
> Is there any reason to think so?
> Or are these just rummors?
> He should have a chance to try to clean his name, in my opinion. Again,
> just like jeffrey epstein.
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023, 17:57 Antoine Riard <antoine.riard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> > Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately
>> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears
>> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them
>> once a week.
>>
>> As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of
>> this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of "off-topic". I had and
>> I still have the concerns of "frivolous legal claims" being used between
>> bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality
>> of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e
>> code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal
>> right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between
>> Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of
>> the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself "If this worries you
>> too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?" [0].
>>
>> When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in
>> a situation of conflict of interests or "moral hazards", or even the
>> appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including
>> the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the
>> "free choice" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring
>> in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be
>> submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private
>> elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a
>> morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of
>> US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history
>> of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].
>>
>> Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels
>> constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging
>> ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants'
>> rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those
>> communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels
>> are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting
>> principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a
>> balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.
>>
>> And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility
>> for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial
>> process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the
>> defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal
>> separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and
>> the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow
>> what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself,
>> from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting
>> or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear
>> affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of
>> innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions
>> conserved.
>>
>> I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign "bad
>> intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences,
>> knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual
>> elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather "grey". People can
>> be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures
>> with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities
>> for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and
>> moral principles to apply in the present case.
>>
>> Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for
>> level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex
>> topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from
>> the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin
>> and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the
>> discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private
>> elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there
>> is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is
>> made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.
>>
>> Best,
>> Antoine
>>
>> [0]
>> https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md
>> [2]
>> https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/
>>
>> Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev <
>> lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>>
>>> Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately
>>> since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears
>>> that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them
>>> once a week.
>>>
>>> Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place
>>> for discussions?
>>>
>>> Tony
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei < niftynei at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively
>>> new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed
>>> on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in
>>> public.
>>>
>>> Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and
>>> github issues/PRs.
>>>
>>> The reason for this is twofold. It helps document the range of options
>>> considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for
>>> new participants to contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>>> Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a
>>> good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public
>>> communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>>
>>> ~ nifty
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/c3c983e8/attachment-0001.html>;