- From: Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verborgh@ugent.be>
- Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2020 23:16:55 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-solid <public-solid@w3.org>
Dear Melvin, CC: all, There’s two separate aspects here: one of them is the factual nature of the matter, the other is what the preferred way of handling is. In any case, I insist that this has cost too much effort from too many people, compared to what we’re really talking about. Regarding the factual nature, I have certainly made one mistake: > "You deliberately altered parts of spec text I have no crystal ball, so I cannot know whether the alteration was deliberate. Hence, I retracted that word: https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/pull/220#issuecomment-612409892 Apologies for assuming deliberateness, while there are other options. As far as the truthfulness of the rest of the statement is concerned, I kindly point to the issue at hand; I don’t deem it appropriate to hijack this thread to make this a yes/no discussion. That wouldn’t help anyone. People can verify for themselves whether or not you have copied the complete text or left out crucial words, and whether your technical arguments hold with or without them. As far as the preferred way of handling is concerned, below is the problem I was trying to prevent. This is an occurrence in a series of multiple cases where you had raised a point that a) is phrased in a way that is technically inaccurate, or contains insufficient detail to assess technical accuracy (often despite attempts from myself and others to ask clarifications) AND/OR b) does not bring any evidence of relevance to any other member of the Solid community. In other words, if we spend time on those issues, we are: a) not solving a real problem AND/OR b) not addressing a problem that affects multiple people. Given that time is limited, and that we want to make Solid work for all, it is my best professional judgement that we do not spend time on them. Hence why I pointed out the technical inaccuracy, and halted discussion. As for this concrete issue: a) at least 5 Solid experts have looked at it in detail, and have not found any issues with backward compatibility. Two experts have ruled your concerns as addressed. b) Multiple people have spend their time on this (I will leave it up to reader to make a calculation of the tremendous cost), Yet here is no evidence that it benefited anyone in the community. Therefore, may I—upon advice from others of the community— suggest that, if you honestly believe that 5 experts have overlooked something, come up with an easy-to-follow example of how a client or server breaks. Please post that as a separate issue, or preferably PR, and we will take it from there; as simple as that. If not, then I suggest we do not spend any more time on this. Let us, please, move on and spend time on issues that matter. You’ve made really great apps in the first Solid years; I’ve seen the screenshots. Can’t wait to try them one day. All the best, Ruben
Received on Sunday, 12 April 2020 21:17:12 UTC