W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2011

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

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 19:13:35 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1R115T-0002El-Nh@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14029

--- Comment #23 from Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> 2011-09-06 19:13:33 UTC ---
> I stated very clearly in comment 5 the substance of my problem

Ah, I see.  Since knowing Ms2ger's real name, if any, would not help with the
substance of your problem, it sounds like your real issue is with the lack of a
patent policy covering DOMPARSING and not with the editor's identity....

> For most reasonable parties, operating in good faith entails disclosing and
> knowing the identity

If your definition of "identity" includes anything other than what Ms2ger has
provided so far, I believe your requirement here is unreasonable.  Certainly I
would consider it unreasonable for me to require such disclosure from people I
think are operating in good faith wrt me.

You know this is the same identity as is involved in some W3C working groups;
you know this is the same identity as is involved in the Mozilla project as a
contributor; you know this is the same identity as posts on various W3C mailing
lists.

What other aspects of this identity are you actually interested in here?  "Real
Name" (assuming it exists)?  Employer (assuming it exists)?  Social security
number (assuming it exists)?  Government-issued ID of some sort?  Names of all
ancestors unto the third generation?

The above questions are very serious, by the way.  I just don't understand what
exactly you're asking for.

> Possible alternative reasons are that disclosure of identity would have a
> negative economic or professional impact.

Or personal safety impact, yes.  Or just basic privacy impact.  Why are you
more willing to assume bad faith than to assume those things, exactly?

Given that the W3C _does_ have a longstanding policy against anonymous
participation, and given that as far as I know this policy has been explicitly
bent in this particular case after some fairly lengthy discussion, my
assumption would in fact be that there are reasonably serious factors weighing
against any more disclosure of personal information than has already happened.

-- 
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 19:13:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:31:18 UTC