Duncan Bayne

Common Lisp Buildpack for Heroku: https://gitlab.com/duncan-bayne/heroku-buildpack-common-lisp (on the shoulders of giants; see credits).

Web site: https://duncan.bayne.id.au/

He added people to his website without asking them and refuses to delete people on request.

I never wanted to be listed with my name, my social media accounts, my homepage. I never gave permission to use my data.

I actually want to stay as far away from Jean-Philippe Paradis website as possible.
Read his insane policies to be warned.

This a gross violation of the 'General Data Protection Regulation'.

https://eugdpr.org/the-regulation/

Name: Jonathan Godbout
Nick: jgodbout
IRC jgodbout
github: https://github.com/slids
notabug.org: noppers
CL Projects:
Maintainer of https://github.com/google/lisp-koans
Maintainer of https://github.com/qitab
Blog: https://experimentalprogramming.wordpress.com/

Name: Remilia Scarlet
Nick: MistressRemilia
Mastodon: https://mastodon.sdf.org/@MistressRemilia
CL Projects: all listed here https://alexa.partition36.com/programming/

Hi can you add ebrasca to the list?

I was not asked nor agreed to publish my aggregated information on this site.

nb: You may consider asking others before publishing their information too. Necessity to opt-out from something you have never subscribed is not the nicest thing.

Be very careful about using this website and anything related to the owner 'Jean-Philippe Paradis' alias 'Hexstream'.

Out of practicality concerns I have not contacted any of the first 100 Common Lispers list members, and out of consistency concerns I don't intend to contact anyone else before adding them, either.

Nobody has received, nor will receive, any type of notification as a direct result of them getting added to the list. Indeed that is part of the point of me not contacting anyone before adding them to the list, as that could certainly be seen as "spamming" or otherwise undesirable.

But I guess it would be useful to know who is happy, unhappy or neutral about being represented in the list.

edit: This has been cancelled. This post is now historical.

So, it's now possible for list members to formally register as an Assenter, Objector or Ambivalent, depending on if they are explicitly happy, unhappy or neutral about being represented in the list, respectively. Simply let me know by replying to this issue and I will add you in the corresponding slot. To avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings, this "Assenters and Objectors" list is entirely opt-in and I will not interpret any offhand comments anywhere as an implicit request to be added to it.

My initial idea was to represent this information directly in the list, but on second thought, that's probably way too political for the list which is explicitly apolitical (and I'm about to add Apoliticality as an explicit tenet). By registering here, you consent to your registration status being eventually represented in some way in the Common Lispers list. You can change your registration status at any time. (You can also revert to "Unknown" status, which is neither Assenter nor Objector nor Ambivalent.)

Assenters

None yet.

Objectors

None yet.

Ambivalents

None yet.

My init.org is controlled by common-lisp ( more often than not)
Portal : sdf.org/~sameers
I may take up maintenance of hacrm in future and am seeking work in the same lines , in market or community.

Mark Watson

Code for my Loving Common Lisp book: https://github.com/mark-watson/loving-common-lisp

Web site: https://markwatson.com

Commercial products: ExperOps5 for Macintosh and Xerox 1108 Lisp Machine

Name: Keith M Corbett
Nick: kmc
IRC Nick:
github: https://github.com/kmcorbett
notabug.org:
CL Projects: None at present

I want to implement partial removal functionality next year one day. (Full removal would be incoherent with the ironclad policies.)

Right now I am supremely busy, and it seems that most or all of the 4 people who want to be removed would apparently not be at all satisfied with partial removal, so it seems there would not be much point in making great sacrifices to implement this right now.

first name: Andrew
last name: Wolven
unofficial irc nick: clothespin
github: https://github.com/awolven
CL projects: https://github.com/awolven/VkTk, https://github.com/awolven/oc
linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/awolven

Name: Will Sinatra
IRC Nick: wsinatra
Gitlab: https://gitlab.com/Durrendal
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/will-sinatra/
CL Projects: https://gitlab.com/Durrendal/Paraexec
Alpine Linux Package Maintainer: SBCL, Clisp, Fennel, Clojure

Per @no-defun-allowed in this thread:

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.

Congratulations, this is a valid point, which I have grappled with from the very start of the project. As said in the policies:

For now, social media account information does not have to have anything to do with Common Lisp. This is due to the relative difficulty of formulating policies regarding what counts as sufficiently or insufficiently Common Lisp related activity on these accounts.

The only useful option I had at the time was to consistently add the accounts I found from a limited curated list of social media account types known to often contain Common Lisp related content and figure out the rest later. Attempting to curate the individual social media accounts from the very start would have constituted a dangerous undue operational burden in what was already a very ambitious project (the Common Lispers list launched with 100 entries researched and written entirely by myself, along with all the semantic and visual design), and would have very significantly increased the subjectivity of the information, an undesirable characteristic. I also didn't want to have to track and police the relevance of the social media accounts as they pertain to Common Lisp, much less to very vague and subjective criteria. Omitting the social media accounts altogether would have severely crippled the usefulness of the list, which was obviously unacceptable.

I might consider removing those particular social media accounts that never have any Common Lisp related content whatsoever, when reported by the person themselves. Unfortunately this may not accomplish much, as I would then need to publicly track the fact that the Common Lispers list is not tracking these accounts, as I certainly don't want to accidentally add these accounts back after forgetting that they had been deliberately removed. This is a question of operational soundness.

I think the best solution would be to have an option to hide the accounts that are completely unrelated to Common Lisp, which would be enabled by default. However, I suspect that very few people would bother reporting their accounts for unsuitability, and I'm not particularly eager to do so proactively.

My preference would be to wait until I've implemented the "Verification" system, which will allow all Common Lispers list members to easily and securely indicate their preferences, among other benefits. Unfortunately this will take a while before I can even start implementing this.

Name: Manfred Bergmann
github: https://github.com/mdbergmann
CL Projects: https://github.com/mdbergmann/cl-gserver
Blog: http://retro-style.software-by-mabe.com/blog

I've got an additional question.
What is the list for? How is the list used?

Sorry, (mostly) due to an architectural bug in my homegrown preferences system (I think), unselecting categories like Coding, Microblogging and Funding only updates the UI and does not actually hide the children fields.

For now, the workaround is to unselect the children fields themselves.
For instance, instead of unselecting Microblogging, unselect Twitter and Mastodon.

It could take a while before I get around to fixing this, since this would take some thinking for a proper fix instead of a ugly hack. Sorry about this.

Verisimilitude sent in an email to request to be added to the list, with the needed details.
(Which I will not copy/paste (even parts of) here, due to a complex balance of privacy and efficiency concerns.)

I'm too busy to substantially process their email right now, but am opening this issue to properly prioritize this request according to my usual workflows.

(I would normally tell them to open an issue themselves, but they neither have nor want to have a GitHub account, which is generally recommended but not required for addition to the list.)

Please remove me and all of my personally identifiable information from this list.

I am not interested in partial resolutions of any kind, please simply remove me altogether.

As of 15 february 2020, the Common Lisp Open Source LinkedIn group is now open to everyone who wishes to join. I'm deleting all of my previous meta posts in the group as previously announced 10+ days ago, but thought I would save most of this rationale post here for posterity:

Limiting membership in this group to Common Lispers list members may not have been the best idea after all, due to various infrastructural limitations.

[...]

One thing I had crucially not yet realized when I made up that rule is that only group members can browse all posts in the group. I deeply hate that LinkedIn does not provide an option to let anyone "follow" the group and see all posts (read-only) without having to actually join the group. This forced secrecy, from the point of view of my vision and use-case, is of strictly negative value and does not confer any benefits whatsoever.

Also, many notable or otherwise relevant Common Lisp people are not yet Common Lispers list members, either because they simply have not been added yet or even because they do not meet what I thought were very low minimum requirements for inclusion (having contributed something to open source Common Lisp and having some sort of active Common Lisp related web presence). [...]