Email is *one* way for open source communities to communicate. An even better way is what we're doing over at Indie Web Camp. We intentionally have no email list, instead we use IRC (with web and Slack gateways) for day to day discussion, and anything important gets categorized and archived on the wiki. This leads to better organization of information over the long term (have you ever tried to actually go find something in email list archives?) as well as provides a better medium for quick conversation.
> 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.
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.
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
follow-up: apparently the Outlook web interface already does this (for other users on the same exchange server)! When composing an email to someone, it auto-added a notice on the top of my email: "2 recipients are sending automatic replies" and included their auto-reply text.