Re: opening issue-74 - Re: (Dis)Proving that 303s have a performance impact.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> On 2/18/13 12:17 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>
>> On 18 Feb 2013, at 17:54, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote:
>>
>>  On 2/18/13 11:38 AM, Mo McRoberts wrote:
>>>
>>>> In which case, I'd propose raising something which results in the
>>>> following vote (or even straw poll?) in order to settle this:
>>>>
>>>> “Is it likely to be helpful to some readers of the spec to include a
>>>> short note to explain the purpose of hash URIs in the examples, or is it
>>>> likely to be otherwise confusing?”
>>>>
>>>> If the answer to that is 'the former', then we can look at tweaking the
>>>> wording.
>>>>
>>> Note: others  have made the same vote request, earlier in this
>>> discussion [1]. I guess, those requests weren't clear enough.
>>>
>> It has been amply clear that you have made this proposal.
>>
>> Others are also allowed to make proposals on this forum.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>
> Henry,
>
> Here is what a chair person would do, assuming they understood their role:
>
> On receipt of my initial mail they would have simply acknowledged the
> position and then clearly indicated the cause of action to follow. Instead,
> in typical fashion, you opted to deflect and basically trigger this thread.
>
> And by the way, you did ask for an issue to be opened, but not in an
> appropriate manner as it simply came across as trying awkward via process,
> when convenient to your cause of stifling disagreement.
>
> What I still don't understand:
>
> What gives you the distinguished position to unilaterally insert such a
> notice in the spec? What gives you the distinguished privilege to throw
> hurdles at those that oppose such unilateral actions by either the chair
> person or an editor?
>

The notice was never "inserted", especially not by "exploiting the editor
privilege" as you have stated earlier. I find that accusation very
offensive and I would like to ask you to refrain from doing it again. The
note was there from the beginning, when we split the spec last year. Please
look at the mercurial history if you want to confirm it.



> In a functional community, you (or Andrei) would actually have put forth
> your intentions for discussion before they ended up in the spec document.
> This didn't happen, it cost you 0.00 (whatever units of timeccosts you
> choose) to insert the notice while charging those that oppose it a
> procedural tax.
>

Henry actually suggested you open an issue, and here's a link to his email,
which was sent 10 days ago:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webid/2013Feb/0059.html

Andrei


>
> Have you actually looked the process and procedures associated with other
> W3C groups?
>
> I have more than a strong case to have you removed as the chair person of
> this group. I sincerely hope you have the ability to reflect on your
> actions, assuming you take this W3C community effort seriously.
>
>
> Kingsley
>
>