Re: STOP! Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re SSUE-19:

Hi Henry,
I have no doubts that everyone involved is trying to move us forward, 
including you. However, while you think you have proven your point it is 
clear that others disagree and I don't see any signs of actual progress 
being made.

We can just keep repeating the same things over and over hoping that 
somehow it will lead to a different result or recognize that people have 
different opinions that are irreconcilable. I'm proposing we go for the 
latter and look for a compromise. This is what standardization is about.

Thanks.
--
Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group


Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote on 06/06/2013 02:25:20 PM:

> From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
> To: Arnaud Le Hors/Cupertino/IBM@IBMUS, 
> Cc: public-ldp-wg@w3.org
> Date: 06/06/2013 02:26 PM
> Subject: Re: STOP! Re: An IRC discussion with Alexandre Bertails re 
SSUE-19:
> 
> On 6 Jun 2013, at 22:11, Arnaud Le Hors <lehors@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone, 
> 
> I would like to ask this discussion to stop. I really don't think 
> this is leading anywhere and it's filling up everybody's mailbox. 
> 
> 
> There is no magic. In one way or another the client needs to figure 
> out that it is dealing with an LDP server. This can be done at the 
> HTTP level, at the RDF level, or possibly both. 
> 
> We evidently have two different sets of people arguing for one way 
> vs the other. As I said before, I think each way has its pros and 
> cons. An objective discussion about the pros and cons would be 
> useful but instead the discussion turns into a religious battle. 
> This is not helpful. 
> 
> I don't think there are pros and cons at all. I am also tired about 
> this discussion, as I have spent
> an inconsiderate amount of time going into greater and greater 
> detail with more and more official
> spec references defending this position (as I was asked to do) 
> The most detailed e-mail on this subject was put forward in the 
> lates email I sent 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ldp-wg/2013Jun/0045.html
> 
> The conclusion drawn is in my view about as clear as 2+2=4. 
> 
> I will send a separate note on how I see the problem and propose a 
> possible solution to get us moving forward. In the meantime, if you 
> want to keep rehashing the same points, please, do so somewhere else. 
> 
> I would love us to move on to another topic, as I myself have other 
> things to do. But I would appreciate
> a bit of thankfulness for the time I and others  spent clarifiying 
> these issue. There is a time when discussion
> comes to an end, and it is fine to make a statement that the 
> arguments have been developed to their
> logical conclsion, but your mail makes it sound like we have been 
> wasting people's time. We did not bring
> these issues up, we were asked to defend them, and we did so out of good 
will.
> 
> It is true that I can't imagine how I could go much futher in this 
> argument without it becoming extreemly 
> tedious in terms of formalisms. It's possible to do that, but it 
> would certainly not be the best way 
> for this group to spend its time.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Henry
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> --
> Arnaud  Le Hors - Software Standards Architect - IBM Software Group
> 
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/