- From: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 11:31:48 +0200
- To: public-solid@w3.org
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