Re: Point or Order, Ruben Verborgh

On 11/04/2020 23.24, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> I wish to raise a point of order regarding the comments made by Ruben
> Verborgh
> 
> "You deliberately altered parts of spec text in order to make false
> claims about incompatibility.
> 
> Please stop interaction with this issue now; it has been locked for that
> reason."
> 
> https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/pull/220#issuecomment-612409892
> 
> It is unacceptable to accuse another member of our community of
> deliberately making false claims. 
> 
> Even if it were true, which it is not, that is not the way to speak to
> someone working on solid
> 
> The motivation to raise this as a point of order, to ensure comments
> such as these never happen again, to anyone else in our project
> 
> Also, I think, at a minimum, I am owed an apology
> 
> image.png
> 
> 


Hi Melvin.

By "point of order", I presume that you are ordering a call upon chairs
to make a ruling. Otherwise, it'd be best to address the director or
raise an issue in solid/process.

I've reviewed the exchange without any hats in any case.

My understanding of Ruben's claim is that the text you've quoted was
cherry picked and assembled in a particular way to make your argument
about the implications. From that point of view, his action to lock the
issue is reasonable in order to minimise misrepresentation.

Aside: As you are an organisation member, you are not locked from the
conversation to comment. Neither is it the case that your previous
comments are censored beyond a show/hide action available to the public.
They are all visible and archivable nevertheless:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200412085847/https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/pull/220

From a neutral point of view, what you've put forward was not
necessarily deliberately misleading or malicious. It could be an
oversight or at the very least used as a way to improve the text in the
PR or elsewhere. Perhaps consider reframing your position to clarify if
you must.

As it stands, all technical issues touched upon in the PR and comments
have been addressed. I believe that the PR being locked or open is of
marginal importance at this point. I have however went ahead and
unlocked, and trust that if there is anything further, it'll be done in
good faith.

PS: The update to the unofficial draft at solid/solid-spec was a
worthwhile patch to highlight but didn't call for additional energy.
That's the past. May I suggest that we focus on solid/specification?

-Sarven
http://csarven.ca/#i

Received on Sunday, 12 April 2020 09:32:06 UTC