<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hallam@gmail.com">hallam@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:19 AM, John Panzer <<a href="mailto:jpanzer@google.com">jpanzer@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker <<a href="mailto:hallam@gmail.com">hallam@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> As often happens in these debates, we have a proposal that has an<br>
>> acknowledged issue that we are being told isn't an issue because the<br>
>> developers don't see it as an issue.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> Actually, what's happening is that people are re-raising objections that<br>
> were discussed back in April and ignoring the answers that were given then.<br>
> It's fine to disagree with the answers, but it's polite to acknowledge that<br>
> answers have been given and, ideally, attempt to refute them instead of<br>
> pretending the answers don't exist.<br>
<br>
</div>No, that is the exact answer I always get.<br>
<br>
And given my experience in national politics, including being one of<br>
the convention delegates who voted to found a major political party<br>
now in government in the UK, you are full of it.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
The claim 'this question has already been answered at a different<br>
time' is a classic tactic in agenda denial. When the politician is in<br>
office it is too soon to answer the awkward question, when they are no<br>
longer in office it would serve no purpose to look back at the past.<br>
There will never be a time to answer the question because the only<br>
possible answer is indefensible.<br>
<div class="im"><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>These questions were answered at the start of this thread. Here are the two most useful links:</div><div><br></div><div>Chris Messina's original response in April: <a href="http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-xauth-to-simplify-social-web.html?showComment=1271797199794#c3187792640589711632">http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-xauth-to-simplify-social-web.html?showComment=1271797199794#c3187792640589711632</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>My response to Eran's blog post: <a href="http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html">http://www.abstractioneer.org/2010/06/xauth-is-lot-like-democracy.html</a></div><div>
<br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>(Note: This thread has produced quite a bit of useful technical discussion and I appreciate those who have engaged constructively.)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">
<br>
>><br>
>> I really take offense when I raise an issue and someone says 'that<br>
>> does not matter to anyone' or 'that issue has been dealt with'. The<br>
>> one issue that I have never found it difficult to get the industry to<br>
>> agree on is the necessity of ensuring that no party gains a<br>
>> proprietary leverage in a communication protocol.<br>
><br>
> Please read the blog posts. It's very difficult to even discover what<br>
> different people consider to be "the problem". Shouting "privacy!" doesn't<br>
> actually move the discussion forward.<br>
<br>
</div>Please read my book where I explain exactly what is wrong with your blog posts.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>ISBN, please?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
This is another bogus form of argument called recourse to bogus<br>
authority. Instead of making the argument you claim that it is already<br>
won, a claim that is implicit in the notion that anyone who reads your<br>
blog posts will accept your argument.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I claim merely that I'm tired of repeating myself. It must be boring for those following along too.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
You are defending your proposal in this forum, not your blog. If you<br>
can't provide a succinct exposition of your argument it is probably<br>
not a good one.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
<br>
There are three possible outcomes<br>
<br>
1) Proposal is introduced and later modified to avoid lock-in<br>
2) Proposal is introduced and proves impossible to modify once deployed<br>
3) Proposal is rejected<br>
<br>
The problem with (1) is that my experience of HTTP is that it is<br>
almost impossible to change a scheme once deployed.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>My proposal is that we freeze the protocol (the JS API) and allow the implementation to be upgraded in the future. </div><div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
(3) is not the worst case outcome for most people. The best strategy<br>
for people who take lock in and control issues seriously is to attempt<br>
a veto before critical mass is achieved.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>So your concern is lock in and control? What, specifically, are you concerned about?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<font color="#888888">
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Website: <a href="http://hallambaker.com/" target="_blank">http://hallambaker.com/</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>