[Libre-soc-dev] Cryptorouter summary page for NLnet

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Monday, August 26, 2024, Cesar Strauss via Libre-soc-dev <
libre-soc-dev at lists.libre-soc.org> wrote:
> Em 25/08/2024 20:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton escreveu:
>>>
>>> I think I finished adding relevant information to the summary page for
the Cryptorouter grant. Could you please review it?
>>>
>>> https://libre-soc.org/crypto_router_asic/
>>
>> looks absolutely brilliant cesar.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I've sent a letter to NLnet, pointing out the URLs:
>
> For Cryptorouter 2021-02-052:
>
> https://libre-soc.org/crypto_router_asic/
>
> For Cavatools 2021-08-071:
>
> https://libre-soc.org/docs/pypowersim/
> https://libre-soc.org/docs/firststeps/
>
> I also asked them to reopen the RfPs. Let's see how it goes.

really appreciated.

> I do feel they made a mistake in declining them in the first place

it was awful, cesar. i had to call paramedics when i saw the
"declined" status.

the entire project has become completely unsafe for me to
even consider working on it, it's been so... yeah. i don't
want to keep thinking about it.

> but do you think that, for auditing purposes, they are even allowed to
mess with the database and rewrite history?

not our problem. they need to learn.


> Don't you think my letter can be easily overlooked, while resubmitting by
the RfPs system is auditable and not easily ignored?

if that did not imply total incompetence on my part, that
i could have been putting in *invalid* RFPs all these years,
i would agree with you 100%.


> Wouldn't be possible for you to write something in the RfP which clearly
states that it replaces an RfP that was unjustly declined, so you are
explicitly not admitting to any implied claims of incompetence?

i don't want to spend *my* time working around *their*
abuse and mistakes. i have had enough of people being
abusive to me, putting my life at risk and then claiming
it is *me* that is the one being abusive?

i also don't want them to get away with the report that they
made, which is blindingly obvious to anyone that it was a
"let's cover ourselves" report.

remember i asked *over 250 times* over about SEVEN weeks
for them to ask questions, when EIGHT weeks had passed
already since the RFPs were initially raised.

*i* had to be the one to rephrase the abusive statements
(they kept making) into questions!

they need to back off, accept that they've made a
mistake, and unwind it.

i will forgo asking them to apologise for being abusive
to me given my physical medical conditions, but if there
are ever any questions about the abuse, i have video evidence
i can provide.

l.


-- 
---
geometry: without it life is pointless
the fibonacci series: easy as 1 1 2 3