Re: Point or Order, Ruben Verborgh

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And it must be withdrawn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
>>
>>