On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:19 AM, John Panzer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> > >> As often happens in these debates, we have a proposal that has an > >> acknowledged issue that we are being told isn't an issue because the > >> developers don't see it as an issue. > >> > > > > Actually, what's happening is that people are re-raising objections that > > were discussed back in April and ignoring the answers that were given > then. > > It's fine to disagree with the answers, but it's polite to acknowledge > that > > answers have been given and, ideally, attempt to refute them instead of > > pretending the answers don't exist. > > No, that is the exact answer I always get. > > And given my experience in national politics, including being one of > the convention delegates who voted to found a major political party > now in government in the UK, you are full of it. > The claim 'this question has already been answered at a different > time' is a classic tactic in agenda denial. When the politician is in > office it is too soon to answer the awkward question, when they are no > longer in office it would serve no purpose to look back at the past. > There will never be a time to answer the question because the only > possible answer is indefensible. > > These questions were answered at the start of this thread. Here are the two most useful links: Chris Messina's original response in April: http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-xauth-to-simplify-social-web.html?showComment=1271797199794#c3187792640589711632 My response to Eran's blog post: http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html When you're having a technical discussion, it's usual and polite to raise objections. When the objections are addressed, whether adequately or inadequately, it's usual and polite to respond back in a semi-conversational manner. E.g., "your response to objection #1 is insufficient because...". Merely re-stating objection #1 more loudly does not help move the discussion forward. (Note: This thread has produced quite a bit of useful technical discussion and I appreciate those who have engaged constructively.) > > >> > >> I really take offense when I raise an issue and someone says 'that > >> does not matter to anyone' or 'that issue has been dealt with'. The > >> one issue that I have never found it difficult to get the industry to > >> agree on is the necessity of ensuring that no party gains a > >> proprietary leverage in a communication protocol. > > > > Please read the blog posts. It's very difficult to even discover what > > different people consider to be "the problem". Shouting "privacy!" > doesn't > > actually move the discussion forward. > > Please read my book where I explain exactly what is wrong with your blog > posts. > ISBN, please? > > This is another bogus form of argument called recourse to bogus > authority. Instead of making the argument you claim that it is already > won, a claim that is implicit in the notion that anyone who reads your > blog posts will accept your argument. > I claim merely that I'm tired of repeating myself. It must be boring for those following along too. > > You are defending your proposal in this forum, not your blog. If you > can't provide a succinct exposition of your argument it is probably > not a good one. > I've done this several times already, on this thread. But in order to be succinct I would need to know what specific objections you have. > > > There are three possible outcomes > > 1) Proposal is introduced and later modified to avoid lock-in > 2) Proposal is introduced and proves impossible to modify once deployed > 3) Proposal is rejected > > The problem with (1) is that my experience of HTTP is that it is > almost impossible to change a scheme once deployed. > My proposal is that we freeze the protocol (the JS API) and allow the implementation to be upgraded in the future. > > (3) is not the worst case outcome for most people. The best strategy > for people who take lock in and control issues seriously is to attempt > a veto before critical mass is achieved. > > So your concern is lock in and control? What, specifically, are you concerned about? > > > -- > Website: http://hallambaker.com/ >
_______________________________________________ specs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-specs
