Aaron Parecki

@andigalpern I'm unfortunately not in SF, but would be happy to chat with you on IRC! I was already asleep by midnight last night tho!

> Point of order. I have not made any complaint about the minutes not being
> posted. I would invite you to retract that comment.

You originally wrote "Yesterday there was a -1 and a -0.5. and I think a 0 (minutes would help)" That parenthetical remark looked like a complaint about the minutes not being posted.

> Apache have left the WG in recent times and cited this as a reason.

No, Henry Story left the group. Apache as an organization made no such statement.

> I appreciate that decision, hence my OP to provide a larger context.

You still have not added any additional information that would justify reconsidering the resolution to rename this story. Your original email said "I had already announced I was attempting to implement it, and was told the user stories were frozen." which is literally recapping information that you had already given, not new information. Additionally, the user stories are already frozen, and have been ever since voting ended.

You have had multiple people ask you directly how changing the *name* of the story could possibly affect your implementation, when none of the actual story content is changing, yet you have continued to ignore this request. I would suggest actually adding new information to this discussion if you wish to continue arguing it.

Melvin,

The minutes were posted on the wiki shortly after the conclusion of yesterday's call. You can always find the link to the minutes from the agenda page. Please check there before complaining the minutes are not posted.

You have been told in the past that it is fine that Tantek is not reading the mailing list. http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-03-10/line/1426011511341

Additionally from Harry's email last time this came up, "there is no mechanism anywhere in W3C process that can force someone to respond to email except (for now) the Last Call process and Formal Objection process." https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0097.html

Your -1 vote was overridden by the chair because the chair thought your -1 was due to a misunderstanding of the proposal, and you were not on the call to clarify your position. You were invited to join the next call if you have new information to add. That is documented in the minutes here https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-07-28-minutes#override

Your current proposal to re-open the issue of renaming the story is un-founded. You have not provided any new information, which is required in order to re-open an issue. You have blatantly ignored repeated questions asking for clarification about *why* your implementation is affected by renaming the story.

If you would like to contribute to this group, I would suggest adding some information from the SoLiD perspective to the brainstorming document where we are trying to get a sense of how to converge the approaches. So far nobody from the SoLiD perspective has stepped up. https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming

Aaron

@LukasRosenstock @mxstbr If you link to your PGP key you can sign in to the wiki with your domain! https://indieauth.com/gpg