{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2023-05-11\n🗒️ Summary of this message: A message encourages Jorge to consider how his words will be read and understood by others on the mailing list. It suggests communicating in a way that recruits allies, seeks common ground, and demonstrates good faith to elicit greater sympathy and cooperation.\n📝 Original message:\nJorge,\n\nI invite you to consider reading your emails before you send them. During\nthis reread, I specifically encourage you to do so with the frame of mind\nof how your words will be read and understood by others on this mailing\nlist.\n\nThe people on this list may have varying levels of familiarity with the\ndrama you are referencing. If we consider the technical dispositions and\nthe critical thinking capacity of the typical reader of this list, it is\noverwhelmingly probable that someone reading your note is going to be\nsuspicious of your purely case due to the overt antagonism that is embedded\nin every line. After reading your note, I am hard pressed to imagine that\nanyone would come away from reading it with more sympathy for your\ncase, which I believe is the opposite of the intended outcome. If you wish\nto affect change, should communicate in a way that recruits allies, seeks\ncommon ground, and demonstrates good faith. Without that you will only\ncreate more enemies, and feel like you are being \"unfairly\" victimized by\neveryone you interact with here.\n\nI am generally assuming that you are interested in getting people to see\nthings from your point of view and it pains me to see you further entrench\nyourself in a situation that you clearly do not wish to be in. Realize that\nyou have the power to change this and elicit greater sympathy and\ncooperation simply by taking greater care in seeing how your words get\nunderstood by others.\n\nKeags\n\nOn Thu, May 11, 2023 at 4:53 AM Jorge Timón \u003cjtimon at jtimon.cc\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Pressumption of innocence?\n\u003e Right to defend yourself?\n\u003e\n\u003e Wow, that sounds amazing, but, for example, wouldn't me defendibg myself\n\u003e from jeremy rubin be offtopic like...pretty much everywhere?\n\u003e Not sure you're familiar with that story, certainly you didn't hear my\n\u003e side of the story, did you?\n\u003e Where would it be fine for me to defend myself?\n\u003e I don't want to keep cosing bitcoin anymore, novody would review my PRs\n\u003e anyway once jeremy made sure everyone thought I am evil. Or perhaps I'm\n\u003e paranoid. Anyway, I would juat like to find the right venue to clean my\n\u003e name or at least be allowed to try. If that venue exists at all, that is.\n\u003e\n\u003e Personally, I feel extremely censored.\n\u003e I also feel I've been judged unfairly and margibalized by many.\n\u003e If it was because of my mistakes and not because jeremy and others lied\n\u003e about me behind my back, well, I would like to know at least.\n\u003e\n\u003e Am I really asking that much?\n\u003e I'm surprised at how very few people are in favor of the american first\n\u003e amendment, btw.\n\u003e\n\u003e I know, I know. Offtopic. Everywhere. Every time.\n\u003e If something it's offtopic everywhere, that's a censored taboo, I think.\n\u003e\n\u003e Therefore I challenge to a public debate somewhere. For me to defend\n\u003e myself and for him to defend himself too (if that's possible).\n\u003e I know it's never going to happen, but I want to make sure it is known\n\u003e that it is because of him, I'm more than ready to defend myself against\n\u003e him. Is he?\n\u003e\n\u003e He can call me a nazi and even though I'm not one (I'm not even racist),\n\u003e it is not so easy to sue for defamation in international jurisdictions.\n\u003e Imagine if I called him a pederast (kethuboth 11b, sanhesrin 69b) or a\n\u003e cannibal (samhedrin 64a) without giving him a chance to defend himself.\n\u003e Wouldn't that be nasty?\n\u003e I want him to be able to defend himself too, or at least try it.\n\u003e\n\u003e Now, moderators, censor this email for being offtopic and prove my point.\n\u003e Jeremy will still get the email and I bet he won't want a public debate.\n\u003e But I'm biased because I think he is guilty. Just like jeffrey epstein.\n\u003e Is jeremy rubin a mossad agent?\n\u003e Is there any reason to think so?\n\u003e Or are these just rummors?\n\u003e He should have a chance to try to clean his name, in my opinion. Again,\n\u003e just like jeffrey epstein.\n\u003e\n\u003e On Wed, May 10, 2023, 17:57 Antoine Riard \u003cantoine.riard at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi Tony,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately\n\u003e\u003e since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears\n\u003e\u003e that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them\n\u003e\u003e once a week.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As I think you're referring to my post of March 21th and as the author of\n\u003e\u003e this post, I'll politely refuse the qualification of \"off-topic\". I had and\n\u003e\u003e I still have the concerns of \"frivolous legal claims\" being used between\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin developers/organizations provoking a distortion of the neutrality\n\u003e\u003e of the development and a chilling effect of the technical discussions (i.e\n\u003e\u003e code we compile and spec we implement). For those reasons, it was my legal\n\u003e\u003e right and moral duty to inform the community of what is happening between\n\u003e\u003e Chaincode and myself. And here I'm following the recommendation of one of\n\u003e\u003e the moderators of the Lightning mailing list himself \"If this worries you\n\u003e\u003e too, let's make sure we keep each other honest, OK?\" [0].\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e When you think a group of people with open-source responsibilities are in\n\u003e\u003e a situation of conflict of interests or \"moral hazards\", or even the\n\u003e\u003e appearance of them, you have the right to expose the wrongdoing, including\n\u003e\u003e the _proportional_ revelation of private elements. People have done the\n\u003e\u003e \"free choice\" to conduct a career in open-source, for some even declaring\n\u003e\u003e in some context to maintain integrity and accept their actions to be\n\u003e\u003e submitted to external accountability [1]. While the exposure of private\n\u003e\u003e elements of public personalities might break common courtesy, it's a\n\u003e\u003e morally valid practice if you're familiar with the public institutions of\n\u003e\u003e US and Europe, and I think this practice has found validity in the history\n\u003e\u003e of open-source commons or IETF's protocol development [1].\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Beyond, the Bitcoin and Lightning development communication channels\n\u003e\u003e constitute a public forum, where by nature the participants are exchanging\n\u003e\u003e ideas and defending competing interests. In consequence, the participants'\n\u003e\u003e rights and capabilities to contribute and speak their minds in those\n\u003e\u003e communication channels should be protected. Those communication channels\n\u003e\u003e are not your usual corporate workplace, and in case of conflicting\n\u003e\u003e principles, the maintainers of those communication channels should ensure a\n\u003e\u003e balance of rights and a proportionality in any restraining measure.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e And this new post is not to exonerate myself of any legal responsibility\n\u003e\u003e for personal matters that could be recognized as the outcome of a judicial\n\u003e\u003e process, respective of both rights of the accusation and rights of the\n\u003e\u003e defense. Rather to enlighten the Bitcoin community that the formal\n\u003e\u003e separation between private matters and open-source responsibilities, and\n\u003e\u003e the adequate check-and-balances to guarantee this separation is somehow\n\u003e\u003e what are the underlying stakes for this feud between Chaincode and myself,\n\u003e\u003e from my perspective. I can say missing an open-source engineering meeting\n\u003e\u003e or being revoked a few Github permissions matters far less than the clear\n\u003e\u003e affirmation and respect of the freedom of expression, the presumption of\n\u003e\u003e innocence and due process in the Bitcoin common space, all proportions\n\u003e\u003e conserved.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I don't blame any party involved in this issue, nor assign \"bad\n\u003e\u003e intentions''. One position is really a function of your life experiences,\n\u003e\u003e knowledge of the legal and cultural framework and access to the factual\n\u003e\u003e elements. As all human conflicts it is not binary rather \"grey\". People can\n\u003e\u003e be top executives at a billion-dollar company, having successful ventures\n\u003e\u003e with hundreds of folks under management, or have a lot of responsibilities\n\u003e\u003e for their relative young age, and still disagree on the set of legal and\n\u003e\u003e moral principles to apply in the present case.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Finally, thanks to the Bitcoin friends who have reached out to call for\n\u003e\u003e level-headedness and cool-mindness in the public discussion of this complex\n\u003e\u003e topic. Like I said to them, in the lack of more suspected wrongdoing from\n\u003e\u003e the other side, I won't communicate further on this subject on the Bitcoin\n\u003e\u003e and Lightning technical channels. However I still firmly believe the\n\u003e\u003e discussion on the principles, abstract in the maximum from its private\n\u003e\u003e elements, should still be pursued on other channels. Independently, there\n\u003e\u003e is a legal channel opened between Chaincode and myself and good progress is\n\u003e\u003e made to find a serene and long-standing resolution to this issue.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Best,\n\u003e\u003e Antoine\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e [0]\n\u003e\u003e https://rusty-lightning.medium.com/the-corrosion-of-ethics-in-cryptocurrencies-f7ba77e9dfc3\n\u003e\u003e [1]\n\u003e\u003e https://github.com/btrustteam/board-book/blob/main/vision/genesis_principles.md\n\u003e\u003e [2]\n\u003e\u003e https://www.ietf.org/about/administration/policies-procedures/conflict-interest/\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Le lun. 8 mai 2023 à 21:26, Tony Giorgio via Lightning-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e a écrit :\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Is there a better place to have public communication? Unfortunately\n\u003e\u003e\u003e since one off topic email was sent here, it's been a ghost town. It appears\n\u003e\u003e\u003e that there's many emails being held and only one moderator that checks them\n\u003e\u003e\u003e once a week.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Would hate to see this list die but wondering if there's a better place\n\u003e\u003e\u003e for discussions?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Tony\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -------- Original Message --------\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Apr 29, 2023, 9:57 PM, niftynei \u003c niftynei at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi all,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e When I joined the lightning community a few years ago, I was relatively\n\u003e\u003e\u003e new to open source software and specification work. Rusty really impressed\n\u003e\u003e\u003e on me on the importance of holding conversations, as much as possible in\n\u003e\u003e\u003e public.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Practically speaking, this encompasses IRC, this mailing list, and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e github issues/PRs.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e The reason for this is twofold.  It helps document the range of options\n\u003e\u003e\u003e considered for technical decisions and it provides an interface point for\n\u003e\u003e\u003e new participants to contribute to the discussion.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Given some recent mails that were posted to this list, now seems like a\n\u003e\u003e\u003e good time to reiterate the importance and preference of public\n\u003e\u003e\u003e communication whenever possible, especially for specification or technical\n\u003e\u003e\u003e discussions.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e ~ nifty\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e Lightning-dev mailing list\n\u003e Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/attachments/20230511/c3c983e8/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}