#RealityCheckTech (Was Re: Deployment, Deployment, Deployment! was: X509 and Verificable Creds: A Quick Note on WebID history etc)

Counter factual...

A term I came across just now.

Reading through:
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2021Aug/0001.html

There's a difference between systems that support intellectual violence,
vs. those that keep that sort of thing able to be sorted out in court
rooms...

When systems, or system operators seek to distort reality, particularly as
a control agent; it is innately a form of violence.

I've had alot of time to think about this sort of stuff in ways, that still
sickens me.

In any case;. I'm working on reality check tech.  What that means is that
it's about tamper evidence, it's about being able to distinguish between
history that pairs up with facts, means to maintain freedom over
interpretation in a manner that supports present day STEM related
interpretations, by agents in meaningful ways; rather than destroying that
capacity, via some means that acts to pervert the history of a #Thing

In all its complexity...

So, I still suggest a fork.  Seems some are on a journey to pervert history
by ontological design; others are attempting to hunt down a more difficult
path, which I think be one of betterment overall.

But the BS methods are far easier.  It's just that it's a form of
intellectual or information based slavery method, so, I can't support it.

If there's a continued push for #RealityCheckTech, happy to help.  I think
it's important for our biosphere / earth, art, life. I think the need is
cemented with physics.  I think physics, gives rise to a belief about God,
in whatsoever manifestation pending on where people were born; different
rocks, different books, different ceremonies...  But nonetheless, they all
understand a concept of #RealityCheckTech.

Just perhaps not why it's an important antislavery method overall; Web
slavery or otherwise.

Cheers,

Timothy Holborn.


On Tue, 10 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm bergi, <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote:

> Am 10.08.21 um 07:29 schrieb Henry Story:
> >> On 10. Aug 2021, at 00:52, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 09.08.21 um 18:32 schrieb Henry Story:
> >>>> On 9. Aug 2021, at 17:34, bergi <bergi@axolotlfarm.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 27.07.21 um 20:07 schrieb Melvin Carvalho:
> >>>>> I'm hearing that you dont have time/resources to take WebID
> >>>>> any further So, would you step down as chair of the the WebID
> >>>>> community group at let others, perhaps a community effort, to
> >>>>> modernize it
> >>>>
> >>>> I strongly support that. Not leaving any comment on a proposal
> >>>> like that is even more an argument to look for another chair
> >>>> who can contribute more time for the group.
> >
> > Btw. what is the proposal that is being talked about?
>
> The proposal is that you step down as a chair.
>
> >>> The place for these discussions in on the WebID mailing list.
> >>
> >> I guess all people who are still interested in WebID are also on
> >> the RWW mailing list, but I added the WebID mailing list to this
> >> thread for the sake of completeness.
> >
> > I don’t have time to follow the discussions on the rww mailing list
> > in detail, and what I see of discussions there, I don’t find to be
> > very productive. Recently they seem to have been very aggressive
> > too, a bit like this call to remove me as chair, suddenly, like 10
> > years after the group has pretty much been quiet.
>
> If you communicate that you can not spend much time on your chair
> position, it's just a logical conclusion to allow someone else to take
> that role.
>
> >>
> >>> Someone left some detailed improvements to the spec a few months
> >>> ago. You are welcome to make a PR using that on
> >>> https://github.com/w3c/webid and I will be happy to review that.
> >>
> >> A chair has more/different responsibilities than reviewing PRs.
> >
> > There is no requirement for groups to go on forever either, and keep
> > discussing issues when there is nothing to discuss. In fact *all*
> > groups that are productive have time limits.
>
> The members may decide to turn it into a living standard. That's not a
> decision a chair can make on its own.
>
> > and that is why we opened a github repository to make just such
> > changes. You can even leave issues there.
>
> It's not about what I want to change. It's about why should one
> contribute to the WebID group if:
>
> - the chair has no time to fulfill the role as chair
> - the chair claims there is nothing to do
>
>