- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 13:44:13 +0200
- To: "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Cc: "Melvin Carvalho" <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>, "Olivier Berger" <olivier.berger@telecom-sudparis.eu>, "public-webid" <public-webid@w3.org>
On 1 Jun 2013, at 10:38, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > Henry Story: >> >> On 29 May 2013, at 16:16, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: >> >>> Henry Story: >>>> In any case Manu did not participate in any of the work for the past > 3 years or so, and >>>> has publically been critical of WebID. >>> >>> That he has publically been critical of WebID should be *irrelevant* >>> regarding the question if he should be mentioned as a (former) editor in >>> the document. >> >> Indeed if that were the only reason for him not being listed as an >> author that would not be enough of a reason. > > In other words: His public criticism of WebID is one element (maybe the > main one) in your decision to no longer mention him as an author. There is a difference between being the cause of something and being the reason for something. Manu's unsolicited attack on WebID on the RWW mailing list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rww/2013Apr/0037.html of which many of the arguments were largely out of date, or based on misunderstandings as I showed in the responses, caused me to think about this issue. It is not difficult to understand: Manu argues publically against WebID and his name is on the WebID spec as author. Things then get very weird when we point out that he has not contributed for close to 3 years to the spec, and that his his arguments are out of date! This incoherence then led me to think about what the criteria for authorship and editorship are. Now that we have official criteria for this, we can give defendable _reasons_ for why removing Manu as editor is reasonable: it turns out that it is just a question of facts, as I argued in the long reply today: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Jun/0004.html This should reduce confusion in the future. > > I am active in the Federated Social Web Community Group and have now > decided against promoting WebID there at least until this issue is > resolved. Independent of any technical evaluation it is important that > technical specifications which are used for an important aspect of the > Open Social Web are controlled in a decent way. > > While I am not active in the WebID Community Group and currently have no > intention to change that I think that others who are active here should > evaluate if you are really representing the best interests of the > Community Group as a chair. > > Cheers, > Andreas Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 11:44:46 UTC