Re: New Scientist - We want our internet back

On 4 August 2016 at 19:53, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> On 08/04/2016 10:48 AM, Sarven Capadisli wrote:
>
>> On 2016-08-03 14:46, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>>
>>> But I can clarify one thing: some MIT Crosscloud-funded personnel are in
>>> the Working Group representing Solid.   At different points in time,
>>> this has been Andrei, Sarven, and Dmitri.
>>>
>>> Other MIT Crosscloud-funded personnel in the Working Group are not there
>>> on behalf of solid.   That's me and Amy.    It's hard to dictate
>>> someone's technical judgments, and since neither of us happened to be
>>> deep believers in the solid approach, it's been reasonable for us to
>>> take on the role of staff contact, a role which requires a degree of
>>> neutrality.   (W3C doesn't ask staff contacts to give up all opinions,
>>> because that's often at odds with having technical expertise. But we
>>> have to balance the bigger picture.)
>>>
>>
>> I think the implication that the Solid representatives are not critical
>> about the technologies that we are working with, don't have more complex
>> viewpoints, or don't have the quality to have a degree of neutrality about
>> technologies is unfair. I'd like to be able to characterise my 'deep
>> beliefs' myself in future.
>>
>>
> Sarven,
>
> Sorry, I made a poor word choice with "belief".   I didn't mean suggest
> there was any lack of critical judgment or skill in anyone who chose to
> implement or vote for or work on behalf of a particular technology stack.
>  And by grouping people together as a I did, I glossed over the people's
> individual differences.  I understand you've implemented elements of all
> the stacks, and it wasn't appropriate to suggest you were by nature
> partisan.
>
> In terms of my email to Harry, my point was the the Crosscloud project
> originally decided to hire you for a partisan position -- to represent the
> Solid project.   One of the reasons to do that was so that I would be under
> no obligation to represent Solid, and could be neutral in the group.   In
> retrospect it may not have worked out as planned, but it seemed like a good
> idea at the time.
>

Many of the people in this group who have represented the point of view of
linked data imho have been treated dismissively, or sometimes with
hostility.

I just dont think its in the DNA of most people in the LD community to
operate in such an environment, and many have understandably reduced
participation or walked away.

As a result the group lost the balance that was achieved during the XG.

This is a shame because the technology we have in this group, if working
together, is capable of solving hard use cases and giving the large social
silos a run for their money.


>
>      -- Sandro
>
>
>