On 1 June 2013 10:38, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > Henry Story: > > > > On 29 May 2013, at 16:16, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de> wrote: > > > >> Henry Story: > >>> In any case Manu did not participate in any of the work for the past > 3 years or so, and > >>> has publically been critical of WebID. > >> > >> That he has publically been critical of WebID should be *irrelevant* > >> regarding the question if he should be mentioned as a (former) editor in > >> the document. > > > > Indeed if that were the only reason for him not being listed as an > > author that would not be enough of a reason. > > In other words: His public criticism of WebID is one element (maybe the > main one) in your decision to no longer mention him as an author. > > I am active in the Federated Social Web Community Group and have now > decided against promoting WebID there at least until this issue is > resolved. Independent of any technical evaluation it is important that > technical specifications which are used for an important aspect of the > Open Social Web are controlled in a decent way. > Andreas, I understand your concerns. But do note that we are referring here to the WebID+TLS spec, which is about using WebID with X.509 certificates. There's no arguments over the core WebID identity spec which is about using HTTP identifiers to denote users. This was authored by Tim Berners-Lee and others. Hopefully, disagreements over the TLS aspect, ought not spill over into the core identity part. > > While I am not active in the WebID Community Group and currently have no > intention to change that I think that others who are active here should > evaluate if you are really representing the best interests of the > Community Group as a chair. > > Cheers, > Andreas >
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:41:48 UTC