- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2015 19:40:41 +0100
- To: public-socialweb@w3.org
On 02/22/2015 06:04 PM, Ben wrote:
> Getting tired of defending -1 votes. Just vote +1 it if you think its
> important. Thats the point of voting isn't it?
Yes, I do think while arguing over votes and issues is important, please
be aware that some Working Group members have much less time to debate
than others. Please accept and respect their opinion, even if you happen
to disagree.
cheers,
harry
>
> Ben
>
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:49 AM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <
> perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote:
>
>> Ahoy o/
>>
>> I just noticed on User Stories page comments from Ben
>> "-1. What server administrator? This is distributed, There may be none.
>> — Ben Roberts"
>> e.g.
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Contest_content_report
>>
>>
>> I understand that IndieWeb community focuses on specific scenario where
>> everyone hosts one's own account. At the same time I think that here we
>> also take into account scenarios where one instance, managed by server
>> admin(s), provides accounts for many people. We see it out in a wild
>> with Diaspora, Friendica, Pump.io, MediaGoblin etc.
>>
>> Could we clarify + document that we stay on the same page which
>> *includes* IndieWeb style of deployments but doesn't put such constraint
>> on everyone? Not sure where to put it on a wiki, maybe something like
>> "Deployment Consideration" page?
>>
>> BTW I also included in my exprimental drafts[1][2], concept of Terms of
>> Service, which will come relevant here and will differ a lot from what
>> we know in ecosystem with handful of services dominating ecosystem and
>> expecting people to actually read ToS.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> [1] http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-glossary/
>> [2] http://w3c-social.github.io/soc-arch/
>>
>>
>
Received on Sunday, 22 February 2015 18:40:48 UTC