- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 18:23:09 +0200
- To: P. J. Łaszkowicz <phil@fillip.pro>
- Cc: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>, public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKtmC2ruaq5_36VTZMWNHjiUUi3SnnAGFx03BzVjWJcWQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 17:33, "P. J. Łaszkowicz" <phil@fillip.pro> wrote: > Okay, there’s a very clear code-of-conduct available which, I believe, is > clear in regards to issues such as this. > > https://github.com/solid/process/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md > > It states that such disagreements can typically be resolved informally and > I would suggest that should be the first step. > > I believe it’s very easy to let these things spiral out of control when it > would be much more productive to discuss this directly. I know I’ve managed > to agitate situations unnecessarily more than once before. > > If this cannot be resolved with an informal one-on-one chat, then, as > pointed out in the code of conduct, the Solid Manager can step in. > > However, I would like to take this opportunity to suggest we strive for a > more optimistic tone and assume the best of each other: that there’s been a > misunderstanding, that the wrong tone has been struck in the comments, and > that a discussion will likely enable both sides to better understand one > another. > > I’m happy to discuss this further if anyone feels it’s necessary. > Hi Phil, It's a simple matter, The following comment, or if you prefer to call it an accusation 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." And it must be withdrawn > > > On 12. Apr 2020, at 18.10, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > 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 >> >>
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2020 16:23:36 UTC