Re: A Quick Note on WebID history

I see the conversation happening on the WebID CG[1], but i'm seeking to not
get involved in the WebID group unless there's enough change to give rise
to hope.

As noted by Gregg Kellogg, the process is for a vote within the WebID group
for the participants of that group - i was a participant of that group,
indeed it was in finding WebID-TLS and thereafter henry that led to meeting
everyone else (kinda, mostly virtually, many, due to poverty of doing 'free
work' in a world where life ain't free - i still haven't met).

I note again the point about 'intellectual violence', linked to the other
point about #RealityCheckTech vs. something else.  I can understand
good-will / good-faith behaviours to better refine history of a thing, to
discover and link more facets, more aspects, more elements per the 'status
of the observer' related to the minds (hearts / souls, arguably also)
involved in doing work;   Yet, an alternative series of vectors, moreover
about fantasies or wilful desires to pervert reality - seemingly on a basis
that the desirable outcome obstructs sense-making beneficially for the
purveyor of wrongs upon others.  By this, i refer to a few quick videos
about freedom of thought[1][2][3] which was part of the under-tone for the
conference i organised[4] linked to the video i produced christmas day
2016[5] sometime down the track from my first post on w3c list[6] or the
underlying works done long beforehand[7] which i have records of sending to
henry 12 Feb 2013 - cc'ing no deceased Alex[8] who was creating a citizen
media platform with the french news wire service citizenside (ie: my
article from the time[9]) that alex purchased and later lost, alongside
digital museum works seeking to digitise graceland (elvis) and an array of
other constituencies that have aspects to history that are inconsistent
with the statements proclaimed by others; in a manner, that i think is
fairly reasonable to take on-board as an intentionally hostile act.

For what its worth; in Australia, the only way i could do the lawful thing
and contribute works, as best i could - often off-list, works intended to
compliment the specialised works of other individuals involved,
particularly those who specialise in fields that are not part of my
strengths  -  the implication for my pursuits, was that i couldn't get VC
Funding, as they would have required activities to focus on accumulating
valuable company IP, and the duty of a director in Australia for an
incorporated entity is fairly simply about focusing on generating
shareholder (monitory) gains.  Equally, I couldn't easily work for the
government as they have a desire to not voluntarily provide compensation
for wrong-doing of its actors and therefore have a pattern of providing
limited means for civilians to have evidence in relation to lived
experiences causing harm to them (or their children / loved ones).

So whilst the experience did not involve getting shot at, gassed, in a
trench - like wars at the turn of the last century (ww1/ww2) - those
involved in those wars, have war memorials. there are no such things for
these modern alternatives that seek to be enshrined our time, our trust,
our commitment to help freely - for the betterment of good - when its
increasingly clear, that's not actually where the real-world commitments of
those with agency to decide - is meaningfully being rendered.

The sacrifice is significant.  Behaviour i've seen, i consider to be deeply

I also believe there is a pattern of behaviour by a cohort of people, whose
actions i surmise to define a series of actions that present a lack of care
or consideration about 'reality check tech', which has significant
implications for rule of law, freedom of thought and protection of people
and their governance institutions from cyber attacks that increasingly
incorporate PsyOps tactics. This is particularly harmful to democracies
whose representatives should have means to represent the desires of their
electorates, which means they need to have a capacity for sense-making
about reality and the common-sense views of their electorate members; which
is also, an underpinning concept to common law and all that grew from the
UK only a thousand years ago, onwards.  This is not even getting into the
implications with respect to the 8-hour work movement and how that has
shifted in this 'cyber / web' age - to reduce people to defending whether
or not they have done anything whatsoever other than survive (when many did
not) the past decade.

I have published more of my old work on slideshare[10].  I disagree with
the definition of 'human identity' being an (identity) 'credential'
although; i understand how that does meet the needs of those who seek to
succeed via different ideologies to my own.  Indeed there's also other
different versions of reality - like this one

As far as i can tell the first time DIDs were mentioned on the lists, it
was here:

First time 'respect network' appears on the list is:

Whilst there are billions of people here on earth; this conversation
appears to make attempts to fight over who was the one person who did all
the important work.  As such, I refer to the points made below as a

or not.  But i did ask Jeff about deleting every post i ever made to the
W3C Lists - he told me that's not W3C Policy.


Timothy Holborn.





On Fri, 13 Aug 2021 at 09:03, bergi <> wrote:

> Am 10.08.21 um 22:40 schrieb Henry Story:
> > There was a vote on Hash URLs and 303 and I supported keeping things
> > simple and efficient with hash urls, as Tim Berners-Lee would have
> > preferred, and I lost, so we allowed both.
> I remember that call very well. There was a majority, and there was your
> position. You claimed that you, as a chair, can make the decision. A
> discussion with you was impossible. The rest of the call was about you
> acting like a dictator, how we can remove you as a chair or if we should
> close the group. Maybe I'm a little bit picky, but that's not the way I
> want to work in a CG.

Received on Friday, 13 August 2021 06:06:18 UTC