W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-webid@w3.org > April 2011

Re: self-signed

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:30:43 -0400
Message-ID: <4DADFF03.8020208@openlinksw.com>
To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 4/19/11 4:55 PM, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>> On 4/19/11 3:58 PM, Jeff Sayre wrote:
>>> Henry has been very clear on at least four (4) occasions that the WebID
>>> spec will not be single-scheme focused. It will not be HTTP-scheme
>>> mandatory.
>>>
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0223.html
>>>
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0225.html
>>>
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0229.html
>>>
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xg-webid/2011Apr/0319.html
>>>
>>> What he has said is that it makes sense to focus first on one task.
>>>
>> On 4/19/11 4:19 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> Yes, but with degrading clarity IMHO.
>>>
>>> When execution of the critical task at hand potentially breaks the
>>> bigger goal what are folks to do? Condone it? Or raise a red flag to
>>> prevent propagation?
>>>
> The flag has been raised, listened to, and appropriately validated, IMO.

Hmm.

Okay then :-)

> We have to start somewhere and go from there. I don't have the resources
> of a large company to throw additional time at testing everything at once.

We veer way again.

Nobody is saying (certainly not I) that you have to test everything. The 
URI abstraction exists. I doubt everyone has tested all of its intrinsic 
implications.

> Focus on one thing, with an eye toward the other issues. Then, move on to
> the next.

Again, that's fine, but "one thing" in your context goes back to code. 
One important thing is the sacrosanct nature of a URI.

If WebID has nothing to do with URIs, there would be need for one to be 
concerned about its compromise.

> At each point you of course have to be cognizant of the broader picture--a
> picture that of course will only become clarified as more test
> implementations are done over additional protocols. But we must start
> somewhere.

And at that start point, when dealing with solid tech architecture, you 
must protect the kernel :-)

Kingsley
>> On 4/19/11 3:58 PM, Jeff Sayre wrote
>>> I'm not sure how many of you have the privilege to work on open
>>> standards
>>> during company time (in other words, your company lets you "freely" work
>>> on Web standards during company time), but some of us volunteer our
>>> time.
>> On 4/19/11 4:19 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> I don't grok that. Who pays for my time? Who pays for the
>> implementations we've done? We have to be objective. Can't jump to
>> conclusions about others. Not good.
> I believe you are not understanding my simple point. I was the co-founder
> of a 150-person consulting firm. I know what it means to allow employees
> to work on non-client projects on the clock. Or to invest in projects that
> hopefully will turn into a profitable product or service. In either case,
> the employees still earn a paycheck. Their time working on such
> non-chargeable projects are still counted as work time.
>
> Are you counting your hours that you spend on W3C mailing lists pushing
> open standards as work hours? Or do you put in extra hours to make up for
> the time you spend here? I will work (on my business clock) until 8 PM
> this evening to make up for the time I've volunteered today on this
> project. The time I spend here is not part of my business and does not
> count as time that goes into my paycheck.
>
> I am a business person, too. I have no issues with profit, earning a
> living, or pushing an agenda. I understand that. I also understand and
> admire all the work that you and your company have invested into WebID and
> other open standards. But it seems you might be conflating my simple point
> with a larger issue of return on your investment (or lack thereof). If my
> perception is incorrect, I apologize.
>
>> On 4/19/11 4:19 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote
>>> As I've been told many a time over 20+ years, maybe you need to be a
>>> little selfish instead :-(
> Perhaps my comments seem too harsh, and perhaps they actually are in fact
> harsh. Again, if that is the case, I apologize. That is not my intent.
>
> I will put in at least 12 hours this week on WebID issues alone. Those 12
> hours I must make up, I must find to put back into my business. I've
> worked on a number of open source projects where, in the end, I've wasted
> a lot of time. If at the end of the week I put more time into debating
> than producing tangible results, then I start to wonder.
>
> The inevitable politics of groups like this get frustrating. I have
> nothing personal with you, Kingsley, or anyone else. I simply believe that
> we have done enough debating and need to settle on a plan of attack. It
> seems to me that we are all wanting the same results.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2011 21:31:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:06:24 UTC