Re: Editing the WebID spec

On Feb 27, 2022, at 11:32 AM, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Please not that CSarven has helpfully put forward 3 PRs to the
> repository recently,
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pulls <https://github.com/w3c/WebID/pulls>
> 
> Those are simple and easy to agree with. 

I strongly prefer using GitHub Issues and PRs to trying to fake 
those tools via the mailing list, from which we have long ago
evolved.

Side-by-side comparisons of changes are far easier to work with 
than mental constructions of the same from DIFFs or similar 
kludges in email messages.


> I find it much easier to work on small incremental improvements,
> rather than changes that risk putting everything into question. 

It is definitely preferable to *generally* make small changes in
each PR, wherever possible based on clear statements of the issue 
being addressed.  A full scale refactoring of the current document
should be discussed in some detail before it is applied -- or the
person who builds such a refactoring in a single PR must be 
prepared for the possibility that their suggested refactoring is 
not acceptable by the CG, and so must be re-done in part or in 
whole to achieve that consensus acceptance.


> The current document has had 10 years of consensus,

I strongly disagree with this framing of the current document.

The WebID IG/XG/CG changed group styles a few times over those
ten years, but has not really been active most of that time, 
and the current document did not have group consensus when the
group went quiet -- when the XG expired -- nor at any time since.  
No matter how many threads went across the CG and other mailing 
lists, there were no regular meetings held, and no evidence 
gathered of this alleged "consensus", via mailing list or 
otherwise.

Had there been such regular calls or other conversations, it
would have been clear that the current draft did *not* have
consensus, even for a day, never mind the ten years you're
claiming!


> so it’s really
> up to those seeking changes to make their case, and we’d like to make
> sure we are moving consensus forward, not putting everything in question.

It's up to *both* groups to make their case, IMNSHO, and
those seeking changes have no less firm ground on which to 
stand than those who seek to keep the document as it is.

The latter have some inertia in their favor, but they have
nothing like a consensus from the past group(s) who never
published even a NOTE or REPORT, never mind a document that 
progressed to CR, PR, or TR.

All that said -- Jacopo, your contributions are welcome,
though they may not be accepted in full or even in part,
as we work towards group consensus and ratification.

Be seeing you,

Ted





--
A: Yes.                          http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html
| Q: Are you sure?           
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Senior Support & Evangelism  //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
                             //              http://twitter.com/TallTed
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
         20 Burlington Mall Road, Suite 322, Burlington MA 01803
     Weblog    -- http://www.openlinksw.com/blogs/
     Community -- https://community.openlinksw.com/
     LinkedIn  -- http://www.linkedin.com/company/openlink-software/
     Twitter   -- http://twitter.com/OpenLink
     Facebook  -- http://www.facebook.com/OpenLinkSoftware
Universal Data Access, Integration, and Management Technology Providers