Re: Point or Order, Ruben Verborgh

On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 11:33, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:

> 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?
>

I have only one point to make, and it's a simple one:

That this comment is unacceptable:

"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."

My expectation is that it will be withdrawn, with a commitment that it will
not happen again

And at a minimum, I am owned an apology

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