Probably link to the Common Lispers list, a very similar and much more extensive resource

[Hexstream]

You should probably mention that the Common Lispers list provides very similar and much more extensive information. Enter has:funding in the search field for funding specific info. (edit: Now you can just click on the search field and select that option, among others.)

I hope you value community well-being more than random slander in /r/lisp/.

[vindarel]

Hi, so first it's not a big loss for you because you are very well referenced :] (well done)

Moreover, I link to your website.

It's not only slander on /r/lisp. I checked, and it appears two people asked you to remove them from your list and you didn't want. It's a pity they don't want to appear, but refusing is not very friendly. I prefer to be friendly, and so not link directly to the list. I understand them, because for a long time I didn't want my name to appear on the internet, unless it's a page I fully control and it's for professional reasons. I understand when they say you could have asked. For example, you didn't ask me to add my full name. Before, it was just "vindarel" or "vince zd". I know my name is easy to find, since it appears in the licence file of some projects of mine (but not all). You'll notice that on my blog or on my projects I don't write my full name. Now if you had asked and pushed me to write it, and gave some reasons, I would probably have accepted. In fact, I think you already encouraged me to "show off" more, I don't recall precisely. This was nice. Encouragements, sharing one's views.

About your list, maybe you could find a middle ground, for example, about ECL's maintainer, you link to the ECL project and you say it's a community effort and there are people to support.

[Hexstream]

Hi, so first it's not a big loss for you because you are very well referenced :] (well done)

It is the last in a long series of catastrophic, heartbreaking losses over several years. In actual fact, me and my extensive community resources are not well-referenced at all, especially in relation to my and their value. That is the purpose of censorship. Please don't contribute to the problem. We already have far enough community-caring people who went away or effectively became useless.

Moreover, I link to your website.

That's cool, but it ought to be obvious that around 100% of the users of your list should be presumed to be potentially interested in the Common Lispers list, therefore linking to it (as you did at the start before getting too easily swayed otherwise) would be logical and helpful. If some of them already knew about it or don't care about it for some reason, I can easily live with that. If those who would be interested in it are effectively prevented from discovering it, it's much harder to live with, especially if it yet further reinforces the notion that censoring me for no reason is much more important than helping the community.

It's not only slander on /r/lisp. I checked, and it appears two people asked you to remove them from your list and you didn't want. It's a pity they don't want to appear, but refusing is not very friendly. I prefer to be friendly, and so not link directly to the list.

I don't think you're being more friendly by censoring the link because of a comparatively trivial concern.

As I tweeted: A much bigger problem is penalizing up to 128 people out of 130 when 10+ of them have already expressed satisfaction and we haven't heard the opinion of the vast majority of the remaining 118 people, who can't be presumed to hate being promoted positively.

I understand them, because for a long time I didn't want my name to appear on the internet, unless it's a page I fully control and it's for professional reasons. I understand when they say you could have asked. For example, you didn't ask me to add my full name. Before, it was just "vindarel" or "vince zd". I know my name is easy to find, since it appears in the licence file of some projects of mine (but not all). You'll notice that on my blog or on my projects I don't write my full name. Now if you had asked and pushed me to write it, and gave some reasons, I would probably have accepted. In fact, I think you already encouraged me to "show off" more, I don't recall precisely. This was nice. Encouragements, sharing one's views.

For the record, I found your real name on LinkedIn, which I'm pretty sure is fair game. I understand that the Common Lispers list cannot please everyone 100%, but I invite everyone to review its rather extensive policies to gain a real understanding of why things are the way they are. Nobody has attacked the policies on substance, which leads me to believe that they are as coherent, proper and ironclad as I think they are.

I did not pre-emptively ask the Common Lispers list members their opinion in large part because I didn't want to spam 100+ people. I also didn't want to give them an opportunity to pre-emptively refuse to be added to the list (most likely for stupid political reasons) when I already had a pretty good idea of what the future policies (on removal especially) would be.

In fact, I think you already encouraged me to "show off" more, I don't recall precisely. This was nice. Encouragements, sharing one's views.

You are thinking of this discussion, which I enjoyed.

About your list, maybe you could find a middle ground, for example, about ECL's maintainer, you link to the ECL project and you say it's a community effort and there are people to support.

I don't see that that would be useful in the context of the Common Lispers list.

I'm thinking of implementing a partial opt-out feature for Common Lispers list members, but this would be after implementing the "verification" system, which unfortunately won't be soon because my infrastructure is not anywhere there yet.

---

Thank you for your consideration. I hope this is to your satisfaction.

[no-defun-allowed]

Fine, let's look at your policy wankery reasons why you can't remove anyone.

While it is clear that many divisions will remain within the Common Lisp community, representing them front and center in the list would greatly impede its stated purposes.

Not representing them misrepresents the Common Lisp community just as much, eh?

Objectors and their best contributions and other information would be harder to find than otherwise.

That's the point.

Some eligible persons would be absent from the list due to their characteristic of not wanting to be in it.
Removing many objectors would make the list much less useful for everyone.
Removing useful and accurate information from the list makes it harder to find.

Ditto.

It is hard to imagine that anyone would want to be removed from the list for apolitical reasons.

I could imagine one: I don't feel a need for someone to know my Twitter, Mastodon, &c accounts to work with me on a project. That's not a very political reason.

Furthermore, no one's censoring you until they threaten you to take down your site; @vindarel is well within their rights to decide how they want to associate with you.

You can continue comforting yourself with your ideology while doxxing people in the corner, and we'll be polite folk who ask each other about our boundaries before doing anything stupid.

[vindarel]

Hi guys, I would appreciate we don't start another flameware! @Hexstream If you want to answer, please be succinct (or report the discussion on a repository of yours?)

@vindarel is well within their rights to decide they don't want to associate with you.

@no-defun-allowed that's too strong a statement because I link to Hexstream in the list.

no one's censoring you until they threaten you to take down your site

@Hexstream Agree on this.

I found your real name on LinkedIn, which I'm pretty sure is fair game.

@Hexstream It's fair game, but what I said stands: LinkedIn isn't public (or is it?).

I'm thinking of implementing a partial opt-out feature for Common Lispers list members, but this would be after implementing the "verification" system, which unfortunately won't be soon because my infrastructure is not anywhere there yet.

I encourage you to do so and I'd like to know what's preventing you to do it quick.
Also, I encourage you to find a middle ground in the mean time. Technical reasons are never enough to justify one's choices.

For now, I am uneasy with your list.

[Hexstream]

@no-defun-allowed

Sorry for the slight delay in replying, some fun stuff has been happening which I had to attend to immediately.

Not representing them misrepresents the Common Lisp community just as much, eh?

The Common Lispers list makes no misrepresentations whatsoever.
The footer and policies are very clear.
Any inaccuracies will be promptly fixed after being reported.
(Unfortunately, I do not currently have the infrastructure and resources needed to regularly audit the list.)

Objectors and their best contributions and other information would be harder to find than otherwise.

That's the point.

Some eligible persons would be absent from the list due to their characteristic of not wanting to be in it.
Removing many objectors would make the list much less useful for everyone.
Removing useful and accurate information from the list makes it harder to find.

Ditto

My point is that making the list much less useful for everyone is obviously undesirable.

I could imagine one: I don't feel a need for someone to know my Twitter, Mastodon, &c accounts to work with me on a project. That's not a very political reason.

Congratulations, this is a valid point, which I have grappled with from the very start of the project. There are very good reasons for this, which I explained in a new issue, along with possible solutions.

Furthermore, no one's censoring you until they threaten you to take down your site;

Unfortunately, this is a quite myopic view. For instance:

• Slandering me is used as a tactic for signaling that no positive assessment of my work will be tolerated so there is no point in reviewing it.

• The talking point about the TWO people out of 130 who don't want to be on the Common Lispers list is censorship laundering. Even if it'd been immediately resolved by compromising the list, another stupid excuse would have been advanced and the project would be no more successful.

• And more, no doubt, but this is already getting pretty long. (Especially when counting the new issue which I extracted from my reply, and my pending reply to vindarel.)

Besides, Daniel Kochmański did fraudulently try to knock the Common Lispers list off the internet, and Rainer Joswig fraudulently tried to knock the Common Lispers list off of GitHub, misrepresenting the information that he had willingly publicly disclosed about himself as "private" information. I had to risk getting the Common Lispers list censored off of GitHub to protect the integrity of the project. If his fraudulent claim had been successful, this would have completely crippled the project, as my commitment to GitHub is absolute and I am simply not going to set up some stupid alternative issue tracker on some random shitty alternative service.

@vindarel is well within their rights to decide how they want to associate with you.

In fact it's even better than that, he is even entitled to not want to associate with me for the wrong reasons, but hopefully he wouldn't expect that I, or anyone else for that matter, would applaud him for it. (Who am I kidding, the slanderers would definitely applaud him for it.)

You can continue comforting yourself with your ideology while doxxing people in the corner, and we'll be polite folk who ask each other about our boundaries before doing anything stupid.

You can continue comforting yourself with your ideology, but please stop slandering my work as "doxxing" when it's completely unrelated. And you should ask me if getting slandered for no reason is within my boundaries before doing anything stupid such as slandering me for no reason.

[Hexstream]

@vindarel

@Hexstream If you want to answer, please be succinct

The subtext is blatant: you really wish I hadn't been so crystal clear.

or report the discussion on a repository of yours?

Which and why? The correct place to discuss this is obviously here.

@no-defun-allowed that's too strong a statement because I link to Hexstream in the list.

Thanks again.

@Hexstream It's fair game, but what I said stands: LinkedIn isn't public (or is it?).

LinkedIn is absolutely public (despite the obnoxious loginwall) insofar as anyone can easily create an account and immediately see all profiles that have not been explicitly set to private. It's also sometimes possible to see public profiles without even logging in, but this is notoriously unreliable. There is an option to partially obscure the full name for non-connections, but my recollection is that this was not set on your account. (But as you said, you did use your full name on some projects, which I also think is fair game.)

I encourage you to do so and I'd like to know what's preventing you to do it quick.

I think this is a profoundly hilarious question in context, as fighting the constant slander and censorship (thread) is obviously a big drain in resources. Also see my roadmap for an outline of my much higher priorities.

Also, I encourage you to find a middle ground in the mean time.

See the new issue for an outline.

Technical reasons are never enough to justify one's choices.

Profoundly disagree. It is obviously smarter to concentrate my efforts on doing the things that my infrastructure makes easy or possible instead of those that my lack of infrastructure makes hard or impossible. This enables me to reinvest my time in further enhancing my infrastructure, thereby resulting in a virtuous cycle of ever increasing efficiency and happiness.

For now, I am uneasy with your list.

Of course you are, the slanderers demand that you hate it, and in fact I expect that they will be disappointed by your lack of fervor.

[no-defun-allowed]

The Common Lispers list makes no misrepresentations whatsoever.

I had meant to say that it's difficult to say the Common Lisp community is particuarly cohesive, and divisions are a natural occurrence. This distributed nature is usually good for everything other than making a list of everyone in my opinion, as it allows for a sort of fault tolerance and great variety of approaches, (compare to your "absolute commitment to GitHub") which almost reflects back on how we write Lisp programs. I digress though — but a majoritarian view of the CL community removes what makes it a good community.

My point is that making the list much less useful for everyone is obviously undesirable.

It is desirable if one needs to avoid making information any more public for whatever reason, and I don't think it's your decision to make if people listed are comfortable with that information made easier to find, and/or controlled by someone else who doesn't want to dispose of it.

... misrepresenting the information that he had willingly publicly disclosed about himself as "private" information.

Again, it appears like it would be easier to get some surveillance companies like Google and Facebook to remove that information than to get you to remove it at this point.

You can continue comforting yourself with your ideology, but please stop slandering my work as "doxxing" when it's completely unrelated. And you should ask me if getting slandered for no reason is within my boundaries before doing anything stupid such as slandering me for no reason.

"Doxxing" is frequently done with enough public information and motivation, so it is pretty related. Can you speak of boundaries and slander when you called someone who doesn't like you "mentally ill"? You don't have to be nice to them, but that's awful.

[Hexstream]

I had meant to say that it's difficult to say the Common Lisp community is particuarly cohesive, and divisions are a natural occurrence.

The Common Lisp community is almost hopelessly divided, which is making it almost impossible to climb out of our pit of despair. Entropy may well be a natural occurrence, but I still think we can and should work towards a more dignified state of being, which is one of many reasons why I am working on community resources.

This distributed nature is usually good for everything other than making a list of everyone in my opinion, as it allows for a sort of fault tolerance and great variety of approaches, (compare to your "absolute commitment to GitHub") which almost reflects back on how we write Lisp programs.

I would say that the Common Lispers list definitely helps represent "a great variety of approaches" over our traditional folkloric bent.

I would also regard the constant undermining and censoring of my community resources more as self-immune disease than "fault tolerance".

(compare to your "absolute commitment to GitHub")

Note that the Common Lispers list still supports at least 3 different code hosting services (GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket), but I do wish everyone just consolidated to GitHub, especially since virtually everyone (92% of Common Lispers list members) already has a GitHub account.

I digress though — but a majoritarian view of the CL community removes what makes it a good community.

Unfortunately, based on more than a decade of intensive experience, I have to strongly reject the notion that the Common Lisp community is a "good community" at this time, which is another reason why I am working on community resources, and incidentally why I am being relentlessly ignored/attacked for it.

It is desirable if one needs to avoid making information any more public for whatever reason, and I don't think it's your decision to make if people listed are comfortable with that information made easier to find, and/or controlled by someone else who doesn't want to dispose of it.

Publishing information on the internet inherently represents a certain loss of control over that information, almost by definition. Security by obscurity is an illusion.

Again, it appears like it would be easier to get some surveillance companies like Google and Facebook to remove that information than to get you to remove it at this point.

I do not have even a millionth their resources and clout, so this is a meaningless comparison.

"Doxxing" is frequently done with enough public information and motivation, so it is pretty related.

This is a bit like wanting to ban basic maps because terrorists sometimes use them to plan terrorist attacks.

Around 100% of the personal information featured in the Common Lispers list either was easily found through simple google searches, or could have been.

Can you speak of boundaries and slander when you called someone who doesn't like you "mentally ill"? You don't have to be nice to them, but that's awful.

I easily can, as what that (presumably) anonymous troll with nothing to lose said (including their previous attack, which I also replied to) is beyond monstrous (compounded by their somehow getting critical acclaim for it) in a context where I have been delivering tremendous value to the Common Lisp community under my real name for nearly a decade, and misrepresenting them simply as "someone who doesn't like me" is, shall I say, grossly insane.

If you are that smart, feel free to compose a better version of my reply to them, you have 256 characters, the same as I did. Good luck! (A tweet is 280 characters, minus the link which is nominally 23 characters and the newline/space before it).

[no-defun-allowed]

Okay, whatever, now you're calling me insane. I'm out.

[Hexstream]

No, I said that the misrepresentation that you made is grossly insane.

You are actually one of very few non-insane people to engage me on this kind of stuff, if that helps.

I linked here, thank you for the great discussion.

[dkochmanski]

Saying, that I make fraudulent claims shows your lack of understanding, of what constitutes private and personal information (and is a slander). You are in a gross violation of GDPR and probably more laws which require consent to process personal/private data -- I would pursue that forward, but life is too short to waste it on people like you; also it is a well-known fact that trolls are fed by engagement.

For the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_data.

edit: while doing it in good faith by someone who is not a corporation /and complying with the removal request/ is fine with me, saying "fuck you" to a person who requests the information removal is not acceptable.

[Hexstream]

I'll never understand why you would think that posting such an easily debunked piece of slander would advantage you, but here goes:

Saying, that I make fraudulent claims shows your lack of understanding, of what constitutes private and personal information (and is a slander).

First of all, accusing me of slandering due to an alleged lack of understanding of the subject that the alleged slander allegedly stems from is downright incoherent. For it to be slander, not only would it have to be false, but I would also need to know that it is false. Yet neither is the case.

You are in a gross violation of GDPR and probably more laws

The burden of proof is on your FUD, quite fortunately.

I also clearly don't have the resources to be enterprise-level compliant, but I'm sure having the right attitude will lead me very far.

to process personal/private data

I have already thoroughly debunked the notion that this is "personal/private" information, and you have absolutely already seen it, so WHY are you repeating the false claim when it can easily be proven that you know that it's false? You are caught in slander yet again.

I would pursue that forward, but life is too short to waste it on people like you;

I think it's worth noting that you would get nearly universally and extremely loudly laughed out of the room if you tried to do it, since you obviously don't have a case, as I have already thoroughly demonstrated more than a year ago.

Do tell me in extensive details who "people like me" are, but try not to resort to slander, for once.

also it is a well-known fact that trolls are fed by engagement.

Then I hope you are having a great meal. You have certainly been served.

For the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_data.

Did you mean to present exonerating evidence? From that very page:

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-122[5] defines personally identifiable information as "any information about an individual maintained by an agency, including (1) any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity, such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, or biometric records; and (2) any other information that is linked or linkable to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information."

If this sounds absurdly unrelated to the Common Lispers list, it's because it is.

saying "fuck you" to a person who requests the information removal is not acceptable

You are slandering me again, as I have already proven that I have been as courteous to you as the circumstances have allowed, and said nothing even remotely close to "fuck you" to you. See the first section and last section in particular. And of course, check the information-rich links within.

---

Do you remember what your first reaction about the Common Lispers list was, dear? You said (unfortunately after I left the room):

Hexstream: is there exclusion policy? while I appreciate the effort I have mixed feelings about such data aggregation and public release without my consent

Pretty hilariously mild, right? Yet it seems that you have subsequently been conned by whatever unidentified sociopaths/psychopaths into accelerating your teeth into a wall for their convenience and pleasure. They used you as a tool, you completely fell for it, and they are laughing at you to this day, especially every time that you eviscerate your own bowels by coming at me unprepared. Wake up, dude. Stop hanging out with sociopaths/psychopaths and doing their bidding. Grow up.