[Bug 14029] normative reference to specification whose author/editor is undisclosed

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14029

--- Comment #20 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-09-06 18:45:46 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> > the substance of my comments 0, 2, and 4 stands;
> 
> What's the substance?
> 
> There is an unsubstantiated allegation that there is a problem with the patent
> policy here.  There is no explanation of _what_ the problem is.  If this were
> escalated to the working group as a whole, I would require such an explanation,
> as a working group member, to be able to usefully decide the merits of the
> case.

I stated very clearly in comment 5 the substance of my problem with respect to
PP.

However, I will go further than that, and describe another, perhaps more
fundamental issue at stake here, which is the presumption of good faith
participation. Namely, I presume, and I believe most other participants in this
process generally presume that the parties participating in the development of
these technology standards are dealing with each other honestly, fairly, and in
good faith.

For most reasonable parties, operating in good faith entails disclosing and
knowing the identity of other participating parties. This doesn't necessarily
mean verifying the truth of identity disclosures, but it means accepting
statements of identity and other aspects at face value, at least as a default
position.

In contrast, my interpretation of the notion of operating under a pseudonym is
that it appears to presume that parties are operating in bad faith. Possible
alternative reasons are that disclosure of identity would have a negative
economic or professional impact.

I don't see an argument here that this person is avoiding identification due to
economic or professional risks, so all I'm left with is that this person
presumes a position of bad faith participation as an operating principle.

I find such a position to be objectionable and counter-productive to the
development of open, transparent standards and technologies. I also find such a
position to be contradictory to the history of work and process that holds in
the W3C.

So, in contrast to your suggestion to the contrary, I have no ad hominem
argument to make against this person, whom I don't know. I merely object in
principle to pseudonymous participation because it sends the wrong message,
because it is contrary to this history of the W3C, because it appears to
presume an operating principle of bad faith participation, and because it
unnecessarily complicates the IPR review process.

If you don't find any of these argument substantive, then that is your
prerogative; however, I do find them all substantive.

In Good Faith,
Glenn

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2011 18:45:49 UTC