@catdotfish - yes of course the former post went out of scope because it was an insanely unprofessional act on the part of @Jessysaurusrex.;
I explicitly asked their team for pre-publication review. You are not the first person to say they’re going to contact them to get my company’s name off of it.
I assume that all 5 people I asked, did as I requested. So why isn’t Notional’s name removed from Informal’s report?
It has not happened.
The only thing I can think is that they were deliberately leaving it there, attempting to attribute to Notional a “low severity” rating on an issue that can stop any chain.
This is why it is decent, and common courtesy to get permission before putting someone (or their company’s) name on stuff.
Please consider the following scenario:
- I write an article talking about how the world is ruled by mutant aliens.
- I then give you attribution for that information
@catdotfish you shouldn’t close that thread, until it is changed.
I deserve the right to speak out and say the following facts:
- The interchain foundation funds teams that misattribute reports
- The interchain foundation funds a security team that doesn’t even give reporters the opportunity to review the report beforehand
- To my knowledge all amulet does is ferry things between H1 and core teams, thus informal wrote the report. But it really isn’t about what I reported. I don’t want to be associated with it.
Why are you denying me the right to continue to demand that the attribution be removed, until it is removed?
It seems… ludicrously simple. I didn’t write that and I don’t want my name on it.
Sincerely,
PS: People cannot edit locked posts. So you, an ICF employee have locked in the misattribution of informals findings to notional.
PPS: really, that’s all I want. I want my company’s name off of a report that I regard as dangerous. It should not take months on end.
PPS: here’s my email asking to review pre publication.
Conceisely: I wanto my company’s name off of that report because I requested to review it, and I wasn’t given the opportunity to and I don’t agree with its findings, and I reported… 18 separate issues.
